Illinois farmer John Dollinger’s family hosted 10 wind turbines across 800 acres; payments began at $10,000 per turbine a year and, by 2025, had risen to about $120,000 annually across the farm

In Grundy County, Illinois, grain farmer John Dollinger gets yearly payments from ten wind turbines spread across his family’s 800-acre property. About a decade ago, the deal guaranteed him $10,000 per turbine each year. That amount has slowly increased with inflation. By 2025, each turbine paid about $12,000, giving the farm roughly $120,000 in total income each year. Dollinger’s experience is part of a wider trend across rural America. According to agricultural media outlet Ambrook, more than 90 per cent of land-based wind turbines in the United States are located on private farmland. Data from the United States Department of Agriculture shows that from 2012 to 2017, 94 per cent of farmland with turbines remained in primary agricultural use. The extra income can help farmers deal with changing crop prices. But the growth of wind power continues to divide farming communities.

Steady income versus land preservation

For many farmers, payments from turbine leases provide a rare source of financial security. A USDA report that studied wind energy costs from 2011 to 2020 found that farmers hosting turbines earn between $8,000 and $33,000 per turbine each year. Clayton Rosenberger farms 1,100 acres in McLean County, Illinois. He hosts one 499-foot turbine that EDP Renewables installed four years ago. The turbine, including its concrete base and access roads, takes up about two-thirds of a football field. It uses just 0.1 per cent of his total acreage. “I’m a self-employed farmer. I don’t have a 401-K,” Rosenberger told Ambrook. “I don’t have a retirement plan, but now I do.” Turbine payments can also bring more money to local governments through property taxes. Rosenberger said his township, which has 300 residents, once had trouble balancing its budget. Tax money from the wind project has since helped pay for repaved roads and new fire trucks. Still, some farmers strongly oppose turbines because they fear losing productive farmland forever. Randy Scilacci, an alfalfa grower in Pershing County, Nevada, turned down a proposal to build solar installations on his land. He said he would also reject wind turbines. Scilacci told Ambrook he was worried about heavy equipment, gravel roads and concrete foundations taking away usable soil. “You’ve only got so much farm ground, and there’s 1% of the population that feeds the rest of the country, and you go taking that stuff out, then you’re putting more pressure on the farmers that are farming to do more,” Scilacci said.

Operational risks and local friction

Building huge turbines can create practical problems for working farms. Building the bases means moving heavy equipment across fields. This can pack down fragile topsoil and damage underground tile drainage systems that are important for managing fields. There are physical dangers as well. Lightning strikes or mechanical failures can sometimes start turbine fires. Burning debris can then fall across crop rows. Even so, developers usually include payment terms in standard lease contracts. These terms compensate landowners for crop damage, soil repairs and disruption to farm operations. Insurance can also cause confusion. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready said at a Lincoln County community meeting that rural residents often wrongly believe that hosting a turbine or living near one could put their property insurance at risk. “There may be reasons you want to oppose a wind farm here in your county or in your area, but insurance isn’t one of them,” Mulready stated. He explained that state laws, including Oklahoma’s 2011 statute, require energy companies to name host landowners directly on corporate liability policies. Community relationships can become difficult even when landowners want to sign leases. Sarah Mills, an associate professor of practice at the University of Michigan who studies wind energy adoption, found that conflict between neighbors can grow when some host turbines and others do not.Mills noted that today’s wind farms use taller turbines that can produce more power. Because fewer turbines are needed to produce the same amount of electricity, fewer landowners get lease payments. At the same time, the taller turbines can be seen from a larger area. “I think this kind of lease model not evolving, is creating more haves versus have nots,” Mills told Ambrook. She added that farmers who receive turbine payments often keep quiet about the money in their communities to avoid resentment from neighbors. In some places, local opposition stops wind projects altogether. In Rush County, Indiana, farmer Michael Dora signed a wind lease nearly seven years ago. But public protests over drainage problems and changes to local views led officials to place a moratorium on development. The project was eventually abandoned.

Political headwinds and community alternatives

The expansion of wind power faces changing political pressures. Tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act gave financial support to renewable energy projects. But political opposition to those subsidies could change the financial picture for developers. Julia McPherson, community relations manager at EDP Renewables, told Ambrook that renewable energy development has become more politically divided in recent years. At the same time, projects in some regions continue to bring tax money into rural government budgets. In places where farms are smaller, some farming communities have tried a shared approach to avoid creating divisions between neighbors. In Isabella County, Michigan, small farm owners worked together to create a community wind agreement that began operating in 2021. Under the agreement, every participating acre gets the same payment, whether or not a turbine is located on that particular piece of land. The agreement also includes profit-sharing if the turbines produce more energy than expected. For farmers like Rosenberger, early doubts changed after he looked at the financial deal and visited a working turbine to hear its noise for himself. “It’s a good thing all the way around. I know some people probably don’t like it, but they’ve gotten used to it,” Rosenberger said. “I think because you just don’t hear any rumblings in the neighborhood about them.”