Local drainage district, engineers press county for written protections before Lewis Creek solar work

Representatives for a local drainage district and independent engineers urged county officials on Sept. 2 to require written, site‑specific drainage protections before construction of the Lewis Creek solar project begins. Anita Ricker, who identified herself as representing Artesia Mutual Drainage District No. 1, told the Planning and Zoning Committee the district needs protections “spelled out in the in writing before the … solar project commences.” She said residents and landowners have raised concerns about subsurface testing and possible impacts to district drains and requested maps showing where soil testing occurred; she said the maps had not been provided as of the meeting. The county has recommended the Lewis Creek application be returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for more information. A county staff member said the board has engaged third‑party advisor Scott Drevicki to work with the applicant and with county engineers to update the site plan and answer questions listed in the county’s resolution. Why it matters: the Artesia Mutual Drainage District covers land that intersects the proposed solar site, and district leaders contend state drainage law protects surface and mutual drainage rights. Without clear, stamped construction and grading plans, district representatives said they do not know whether testing or construction will damage drainage infrastructure or alter flow paths. Details from the meeting: Ricker said she has been in contact with more than 20 people tied into the drainage district who reported concerns about where soil borings and other tests were performed. She said some residents reported that a company drove I‑beams into the ground for testing and later removed them, and that the district does not yet have a map of testing locations. “I have complete faith” in the district’s retained engineer, Ricker said, naming John Poppier as the drainage engineer the district engaged to review the project and protect the district’s water, and asked that protections be recorded in writing. Don Wautier, an agricultural and biological engineer with Burns Clancy and Associates who said he has reviewed more than a dozen solar farms for drainage districts and counties, told the committee the application materials submitted so far are incomplete. “The site plans that are there now just say, basically, our we're gonna build a solar. That doesn't tell you anything,” Wautier said, noting the plans lack grading and detailed construction drawings. County staff summarized the procedural outcome: the county board recommended the application be returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals and has retained Scott Drevicki as a third‑party advisor to work with the applicant (identified in meeting materials as Allium, the project parent LLC) and any hired engineering firm to produce updated plans addressing surface and subsurface drainage, materials to be used, and specific component manufacturers for panels and racking. Staff said once those materials are provided, the ZBA will hold a hearing and request public comment. What was not decided: the committee did not approve construction plans, nor did the meeting produce a permit or final determination. The county and the applicant must still produce detailed engineering plans and locate any prior soil testing for review. Next steps: staff said the applicant must hire an engineering firm to work with the county and the third‑party advisor; after the updated materials are submitted, the ZBA will schedule a hearing and solicit public comment.