There are fixes to state law that may be expedient, even pragmatic, from a certain perspective. But step back from them a bit and it’s clear that they are bad policy.

That’s the case with House Bill 593, which seeks to allow solar energy arrays to be placed on agricultural land with A-rated soils. The argument being made is that achieving the state’s renewable-energy adoption goals would require accommodation of utility-scale solar farms on large, open, flat parcels — characteristics also favored for agricultural cultivation.

But this would work against one of Hawaii’s other stated policy goals: increasing the level of food production and other agricultural activities in a state with a limited capacity for that. At some point a line should be drawn, and it should be to safeguard the state’s best soils for growing food.

HB 593 passed second reading after being heard jointly by two Senate committees: Water and Land and Energy, and Economic Development and Tourism. But there are signs of discomfort with the proposal: Six voted no, and one voted for the bill, “with reservations.”

Surely, this must be read as anything but a ringing endorsement as the measure moves on to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. While it’s unnerving to see this bill move so far through subject-area committee review, the finance panel at least has a chance to apply the brakes, as it should do.

That ought to be easy enough: The twin measure introduced in that chamber, Senate Bill 1008, was held after its first hearing. Both measures sought to expand the ability to place solar installations on agricultural-zoned land by adding land with top-rated soils (“productivity rating class A”) to the eligible list.

Among those testifying for either measure is the nonprofit organization Hawaii Clean Power Alliance, incorporated a year ago. The aim is “to advance the development and sustainability of clean energy in Hawaii,” according to its written testimony on HB 593, a statement that also underscores that agriculture and energy development have been at odds unnecessarily in the competition for land use.

“This bill can help to take away those silos and solve the problem of deciding one over the other by creating a meaningful and symbiotic partnership between two industries,” the statement read.

The time pressure here is the anticipated decline in tax incentives after 2022, but that’s an insufficient reason.

Some of those testifying in favor of the measure were farmers who argued that revenue enhancements enabled by on-site power production are needed to underwrite sustainable agriculture. For example, Kerry Kakazu of MetroGrow Hawaii is only one of numerous farmers who pointed to the ability to cover some of the large electricity costs incurred in farming.

However, they are strongly countered by others speaking for agricultural and environmental interests. These include the Hawaii Farm Bureau, whose executive director, Brian Miyamoto, said covering prime ag land with solar arrays equates with the loss of those lands.

“Rising demand for solar energy could swallow up huge swaths of farmland, as struggling farmers may be coerced into selling or leasing to these developments,” he said.

He’s right. The land beneath solar panels may be good for sheep grazing, but that’s too minimally productive for top-notch soils.

Joining the opposition: the state Department of Agriculture, which underscored that the acreage available for solar facilities has increased in recent years.

That increase was justified, but not a further expansion that forecloses on agricultural goals in a state with urgent needs for food security.