County hears landowner concerns and seeks more information on proposed power‑line right‑of‑way for wind project

Gilliam County Court heard detailed public comment and developer responses about a proposed right‑of‑way application to install transmission poles in county road rights‑of‑way for a wind energy project.

Commissioner Leah Watkins declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from the discussion because she and her husband had been approached about a land lease associated with the project and they lease land that may host turbines. Commissioner Wilkins presided over the discussion and said he wanted more information and direct outreach to affected landowners before the court takes action.

Representatives for the applicant said the filing seeks access to the county road right‑of‑way only and that they plan to stay within the road corridor. The applicant’s representatives said some adjacent landowners already hold exclusive leases with another developer, which was their rationale for pursuing the county right‑of‑way; the representatives said they are also talking with other developers, including EDPR and Brookfield, about coordination.

“By requesting exact locations of where poles will be…that would require significant design that costs a ton of money and time,” the applicant’s representative said, asking the court to distinguish between information requests and permit conditions.

Multiple nearby residents and landowners told the court they had not been informed in advance and raised technical and quality‑of‑life concerns. Comments included questions about the number of poles required along curved and narrow county roads, the height of monopoles (up to 250 feet, as noted in testimony), local flooding and erosion risks during construction, visual impacts and airport height restrictions near nearby airfields. Several landowners urged the court to require direct landowner notice, engineering layouts and a joint meeting where developers and affected property owners can ask questions together.

One landowner said the county road corridor proposed for monopoles currently has no overhead lines, and another suggested alternative routes such as a disused railroad corridor that would reduce impacts to private properties and viewsheds.

County staff and the applicants agreed to organize further meetings. The applicant said it would prepare additional information and a formal written response to a letter the court issued earlier in the day. Both parties proposed a work session so commissioners, landowners and developers can discuss routing options, technical requirements and next steps before the court considers formal approval.

Ending: Commissioners said they want thorough documentation and clearer communications with affected landowners before making any decision; a work session and additional applicant materials were requested by the court.