Committee advances bill to restrict wind‑farm siting after heated testimony from rural landowners and industry
Summary
House Bill 22-23 would set statewide requirements for wind-farm permitting, create a temporary health‑impacts study committee and impose setbacks; the committee returned the bill with a due‑pass recommendation after hours of testimony from ranchers, conservationists, developers and utilities
House Bill 22-23, sponsored in committee as a measure to set statewide standards for the approval, siting, permitting and operation of wind farms, advanced with a due‑pass recommendation after a contentious hearing during which ranchers, local residents, environmental groups and industry representatives offered sharply divergent views.
Sponsor Representative Marshall said wind projects on state trust land in northern Arizona are proliferating and raised concerns about private‑property impacts, wildlife, visibility and decommissioning. He said the bill would prescribe county public‑hearing rules, applicant requirements, conveyance rules for wind‑farm ownership on state lands and create a wind‑farm health impacts study committee with a statutory repeal date of Oct. 1, 2026.
Opponents, including industry and renewable‑energy advocates, said the bill would effectively block wind development in Arizona. Stan Barnes of Inner West Energy Alliance and other trade representatives argued county boards already exercise zoning authority and that the state should not preempt local land‑use decisions. Industry witnesses said wind and solar are cost‑competitive resources that have created jobs and tax revenue in other jurisdictions.
A number of landowners and residents from Apache and Navajo counties urged stricter limits or outright protections for private property, citing shadow flicker, visual impacts, local wildlife and soil disturbance. Ranchers described potential loss of grazing land and long‑term site disturbance; residents described concerns about tourism and tribal land use.
Environmental witnesses took differing positions: Sierra Club testimony opposed the bill, saying it was designed to hinder wind development and that other energy sources also have impacts; other conservation and local groups asked for stronger decommissioning bonds and setbacks.
The committee voted to return the bill with a due‑pass recommendation; the final recorded vote was 6 ayes and 4 nays. Sponsors and supporters said the measure intends to add protections for nearby residents and ensure decommissioning and compensation processes; critics warned it would chill renewable development and leave the state less competitive for clean‑energy projects.
Ending: Committee members who supported the measure said it responds to local concerns in northern Arizona; opponents said counties retain existing zoning authority and that the bill’s restrictions risk curbing renewable investment.
