Agriculture Freedom Zones: What Sid Miller Gets Right — and What Texas Must Get Right

Texas is right to pay attention to Agriculture Freedom Zones.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller has put forward a proposal that deserves serious discussion, not political posturing, not fear-mongering, and not blind enthusiasm.

This is not a fluff piece.

I’m going to tell you what this proposal gets right, and where it could go very wrong if Texans don’t demand real guardrails.

What Sid Miller Gets Right

Land and Water Are Finite, and Strategic

At the heart of this proposal is a truth too many policymakers have ignored for too long:

Land and water are finite.

Prime farmland and irrigation water aren’t just real estate assets. They are strategic resources. Once farmland is paved over, once aquifers are depleted, those losses are permanent.

Commissioner Miller is right to challenge the assumption that rural land is expendable simply because tech companies want cheap space and cheap water.

That framing matters.

Texas Longhorn. Agriculture.

It resonates with:

• Farmers and ranchers

• Rural communities

• Conservatives

• Environmental advocates

That kind of alignment is rare, and worth acknowledging.

This Is Not a Data Center Ban

That distinction is important.

Data centers are real infrastructure. They aren’t going away. The question is not if they exist, it’s where they go and under what conditions.

Agriculture Freedom Zones attempt to guide growth rather than react to it. That keeps Texas competitive without sacrificing the land that feeds us.

That approach is smarter than pretending the problem disappears if we just say “no.”

Incentives Over Mandates Matter

From a conservative governance standpoint, this is another area where the proposal gets it right.

Agriculture Freedom Zones rely on:

• Incentives instead of blanket bans

• Market signals instead of top-down mandates

That makes the concept defensible. It avoids reflexive anti-business rhetoric and preserves flexibility, if the framework is designed correctly.

Where the Risks Begin

Texans have every reason to be cautious.

Anything modeled after Opportunity Zones triggers skepticism, and for good reason.

We’ve seen what happens when:

• Accountability is weak

• Community consent is symbolic

• Large investors write the rules

Without firm guardrails, Agriculture Freedom Zones risk becoming Opportunity Zones 2.0, with rural Texans paying the price.

Water Is the Dealbreaker

This proposal rises or falls on water.

If Agriculture Freedom Zones allow:

• Groundwater depletion

• Vague “mitigation” promises

• Water transfers without local consent

  
  

Then the entire framework collapses.

Water protection must be ironclad. No loopholes. No maybes. No after-the-fact fixes.

Local Control Must Be Real

Not “input.”Not “feedback.” Authority.

Texans are done being consulted after decisions are already made.

Any Agriculture Freedom Zone framework must include:

• True local opt-in

• Enforceable oversight

• The ability for communities to say no

  
  

Anything less is governance theater.

My Position — Clearly Stated

Agriculture Freedom Zones are a starting point, not a finished policy.

If Texas is going to do this right, the non-negotiables are clear:

• No conversion of prime farmland

• No use of irrigation district water without consent

• Hard caps on water usage

• Local opt-in—not state override

• Full public disclosure of water, energy, and tax impacts

• Sunset clauses with mandatory review

That is not anti-growth.

That is anti–corporate capture.

You can be pro-innovation and pro-farmer. You can protect property rights and stop silent land grabs.

That’s the lane I’m in.

A Necessary Clarification — and a Line I Will Not Cross

Let me be absolutely clear.

I am not saying “there’s nothing we can do” because I’m okay with what’s happening. I’m saying it because right now, the tools to stop these projects do not exist in a meaningful, enforceable way.

And that is the problem.

I am not budging on this: Massive data centers and AI infrastructure absolutely impact water rights, property rights, and the environment. Those impacts deserve serious constitutional scrutiny, not rubber stamps, not backroom approvals, and not decisions made over the objections of the people who live there.

This is also not an endorsement of AI centers or data center expansion.

I do not support sacrificing Texas land, water, or rural communities to unchecked industrial growth, period.

What I am talking about is how we create leverage where Texans currently have none.

Right now, communities are told to object, submit comments, and show up to hearings, only to be overridden anyway. That is not meaningful participation. That is process without power.

If Agriculture Freedom Zones are structured correctly, Sid Miller’s proposal could provide Texans with something they currently lack: a legal leg to stand on. A framework with enforceable standards, real transparency, and true local authority is not a green light for data centers, it is a tool to slow them, challenge them, and stop them when they threaten water, property rights, or the public trust.

Until communities have enforceable standards, transparency, and real local control, these projects will continue to be green-lit over public objection every time.

Recognizing that gap is not surrender. It is identifying exactly what must be fixed so people actually can push back.

I am not endorsing the outcome. I am fighting to change the rules of the game, so the people finally have a say.

A Conservative Path Forward

Yes to innovation. Yes to food and water security. Yes to local consent.

And no, to sacrificing rural Texas behind closed doors.

I am Chasity Wedgeworth, and I’m running for U.S. Congress in Texas Congressional District 13.

Voters will have a choice in the Republican Primary on March 3rd, against Ronny Jackson.

This issue—and how we handle it—will matter far beyond one election.