Agriculture Freedom Zones, Technology, and the Constitution: A Principled Path Forward for Texas

The Cadillac Ranch. Texas Farmland. Agriculture.

Texas is facing a real and growing tension.

On one side are farmers, ranchers, and rural communities who are rightly concerned about land loss, water depletion, and decisions being made without their consent. On the other is an economy that increasingly depends on digital infrastructure, data processing, and technological growth.

This does not have to be a zero-sum fight.

Proposals often described as Agriculture Freedom Zones (AFZs) have entered the conversation as a possible way to balance economic growth with rural preservation. But that balance only works if it is guided by constitutional principles, Republican values, and firm protections for property rights, water, and local control.

Below are the principles that must govern any serious discussion of Agriculture Freedom Zones in Texas.

Farmers should not have to compete with tech giants for land and water.

1. Property Rights Are Not Optional

Private property is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right.

Any policy related to Agriculture Freedom Zones must explicitly prohibit:

• Forced land conversion

• Regulatory coercion

• Backdoor eminent domain

• Economic pressure that strips landowners of meaningful choice

Participation must be voluntary, transparent, and revocable. Landowners—not agencies, not corporations, not political interests—must retain ultimate authority over their property.

Respect for property rights is foundational to conservatism, and Texas should never abandon that principle.

2. Water Is a Public Trust, Not a Commodity Dumping Ground

Water scarcity is already one of Texas’ most serious challenges. Any framework that allows large-scale industrial or technological development near agricultural land must place water protection at the center, not the margins.

That means:

• No use of toxic or chemically altered wastewater in agriculture

• No discharge into watersheds, aquifers, or near community spaces

• No environmental exemptions disguised as “economic development”

If a project cannot prove it protects water, it does not belong anywhere near Texas farmland.

3. Local Consent Is a Constitutional Requirement

Decisions that reshape land use, infrastructure, and water access cannot be made exclusively in Austin or Washington.

Local communities must have:

• Public notice

• Meaningful hearings

• Local veto authority

• Ongoing oversight

If a project cannot withstand public scrutiny, it has not earned public trust. Republican governance means decisions are made closest to the people affected by them.

4. Technology Must Serve the People — Not Govern Them

Technology is a tool. It is not neutral by default.

Any Agriculture Freedom Zone framework must reject:

• Mass data collection without consent

• Surveillance partnerships between government and private entities

• Lack of transparency in how data is stored, used, or shared

Innovation must operate within constitutional boundaries—especially the Fourth Amendment and the principle that people, not systems, are sovereign.

5. No Regulatory Capture, No Special Carve-Outs

Economic growth should not come from picking winners and losers.

Agriculture Freedom Zones must not become:

• Tax shelters for multinational corporations

• Loopholes that bypass environmental or labor protections

• Regulatory safe havens insulated from accountability

If rules exist to protect people, land, and workers, they must apply equally. Conservatives believe in fair markets, not government favoritism.

6. Agriculture Comes First — Permanently

Once farmland is gone, it is gone.

Any land designated under an AFZ framework must:

• Exclude prime farmland and strategic watersheds

• Be limited in scope and duration

• Include enforceable sunset clauses

• Require restoration or remediation where appropriate

Food security is national security. That principle is not negotiable.

A Middle Ground Worth Discussing — If the Guardrails Are Real

Agriculture Freedom Zones are not inherently good or bad. What matters is who they serve, how they are governed, and whether constitutional limits are respected.

If AFZs protect farmland, respect water, empower local communities, and restrain unchecked power, they may represent a path forward worth discussing.

If they become a mechanism for quiet land conversion, surveillance expansion, or corporate favoritism, they should be rejected outright.

The Constitution does not oppose progress.

It demands that progress remain accountable to the people.

That is the standard I will apply—every time.

Chasity Wedgeworth