San Juan County council continues Decatur lease after residents press environmental and process concerns

SAN JUAN COUNTY, Wash. — The San Juan County Council on Tuesday continued a public hearing on a proposed multiyear lease of county land on Decatur Island to Orcas Power & Light Cooperative for a solar installation, saying staff should return to the council on June 3 with amendments to the lease and clarifications about permitting and mitigation.

The council opened the hearing after Department of Public Works Director Colin Huntermer briefed members on a draft land lease and a graphic of the parcels at the center of the proposal. Huntermer said the document before the council is a lease “of land” and “is not a regulatory approval or a permit to do a solar installation.” He told the council the county has been negotiating technical edits with Opalco and the county prosecutor’s office and recommended receiving public comment first.

Why it matters: Dozens of Decatur residents and property owners turned out, arguing the proposal would require clear-cutting of forested slopes, risk long-term runoff and well impacts, and was advanced without adequate public notice. Speakers also said state permits — including forest-practices approvals and coordination with the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review — appear likely and should be demonstrated or required before any site work.

What residents told the council

- Several speakers said the lease’s operative language requires Opalco “to clear, grub, and grade the entire” parcel — a phrase read from emails and the draft lease — and said that would convert forested land in a hydrologic center of the island. Donnie Cunnington, who identified himself as a full‑time Decatur resident, reminded council members that county land‑use tables classify a commercial generating facility in rural zoning as requiring a conditional‑use permit.

- Multiple speakers warned the clearing would exceed the threshold that triggers Washington State forest‑practices review (several said the 5,000 board‑foot threshold), potentially creating a class 4 conversion and requiring DNR coordination, and asked the county to require any necessary forest‑practices permit before clearing begins.

- Others described local impacts they have already observed from an existing Opalco installation on another part of the island — loss of screening, noise, visual impact from panels placed to road edges, and ongoing drainage and maintenance issues — and said those problems must be addressed in any new agreement.

- Several speakers said they learned of the proposed lease only by word‑of‑mouth or FOIA documents and that Opalco’s outreach appeared selective. Property owner Alan Mazuda, who identified himself as an early investor in Opalco’s original project, told the council records show key lease terms were negotiated before broad public notice and said the financial terms published in records appeared disproportionate to the value conveyed.

What county staff and council said

Huntermer told the council the draft lease before them had been updated to reflect prosecuting‑attorney input and that the county’s action was limited to authorizing a land lease, not to granting permits. He said the county’s public works operations could be accommodated on the parcel remainder if Opalco leased a portion of the site, and that public‑works staff had considered area needs for a 25‑year term (the current draft lists a 25‑year lease term).

Council members pressed for stronger, explicit protections in the lease. Council member Justin Paulson asked staff to make explicit that site preparation "shall not commence until all necessary regulatory approvals have been obtained," and for clearer language on buffering and on specific maintenance standards for panels and site drainage. The county manager and public‑works staff said they would add those clarifications.

Official action and next steps

Council member Paulson moved to continue the public hearing to June 3 so staff can return with revised lease language and additional documentation; the motion carried by voice vote. The council did not approve or deny the lease on Tuesday.

The council and multiple public speakers also asked the county to confirm: whether the clearing requirement remains in the draft lease, which permits Opalco must secure (including any forest‑practices application to DNR and SEPA review), how stormwater and drainage will be assessed and mitigated, and whether the lease amount and term reflect the value of the clearing and grading the county would receive.

Ending note: Participants repeatedly noted the project is tied to a Washington State Department of Commerce grant referenced by Opalco; several speakers said the grant’s timeline appeared to be driving a sense of urgency. Council members and staff emphasized they will not grant permitting certainty and said no site work should occur until permits and environmental reviews are complete.