Worth County hears split public comment on proposed development agreement with Invenergy/Worthwhile Wind

Worth County Board of Supervisors heard extended public comment on a proposed development and settlement agreement with developer Worthwhile Wind (Invenergy) that would resolve ongoing litigation and allow a large wind project to proceed under negotiated setbacks, noise limits and exemptions.

The proposal, presented to the supervisors for public comment, would resolve appeals tied to prior zoning and moratorium actions and would set project-specific rules including setbacks ranging from 1,200 to 2,000 feet depending on location and participation status, sound limits described in the draft agreement, limits on turbine number and height, and a 50-year exemption language that several speakers described as overly broad.

Supporters told the board the agreement is a compromise that would protect county infrastructure, create construction and long-term operations jobs, and deliver tax revenue. Isaac Lampa, project manager for Bend Energy’s Worthwild Wind project, said the settlement “represents a meaningful compromise” and, he said, “would allow the full project to move forward, which our landowners very much want to see.” David Bomer, manager of community affairs for Infinergy, said the company has donated to local groups and described the developer as “community minded.” Dylan Grandlidge, of the Laborers International Union of North America Local 177, urged supervisors not to adopt ordinances that would block construction and said the union’s members would provide local, skilled labor for the project.

Opponents urged the board to reject or delay the agreement and let the Iowa Supreme Court appeal run its course. Several residents and landowners raised the following concerns: that the agreement would bypass the county’s zoning and public‑permit processes; that it would grant unusually long exemptions (one speaker described a proposed 50‑year exemption); that “good neighbor” agreements offered to nonparticipating residents are nonnegotiable and of limited value; that the settlement uses different setback standards for participating versus nonparticipating landowners and for different townships (examples cited included 1,200 feet for participating landowner homes, 1,650 feet in previously unzoned areas such as Bristol and Silver Creek, and 2,000 feet in zoned areas for nonparticipating homes); and that the draft’s sound standards (the development deal referenced a 48 dB(A) limit) lack measurement specificity and do not address low‑frequency noise or complaint adjudication.

Julie Koots, a Worth County landowner, said the settlement materials had been posted only shortly before the hearing and that several attached maps were incorrect. She also questioned tax treatment of industrial solar referenced in the draft and raised concerns about drainage and restoration language. Matt Helgason, a resident near the Winnebago–Worth line, said sound standards in the draft “are inadequate and not compatible” with the county ordinance adopted in February 2022, and he read a summary from an acoustician who said the proposed wording “is excessive for comfortable sleep” and omits protections against low‑frequency noise.

Eric Updegraff, outside counsel who represents the county in the litigation, explained why supervisors were negotiating now rather than waiting on appeal. He said federal changes to the definition of “beginning of construction” and related tax‑credit deadlines passed on July 4 could reduce the developer’s time window for securing production tax credits, and that if the developer lost incentives to build it might litigate for damages against the county. Updegraff said the project is roughly 164 megawatts with construction costs he estimated at over $300 million and that “there are $30,000,000 in potential damages” discussed as a possible exposure in litigation. He told the meeting that supervisors have authority under Iowa law to settle certain disputes and explained that the negotiated setbacks and terms reflect a compromise between what the county would get if it won the appeal and what landowners would receive if the county lost.

Speakers on both sides also raised other technical and process questions addressed in the draft agreement: drainage and tile repair timing and standards; decommissioning and removal height for buried infrastructure; reliance on a developer‑supplied map for protected wildlife areas instead of the Iowa DNR eagle‑nesting map; the measure and enforcement of modeled versus in‑field sound levels; the scope and negotiability of “good neighbor” agreements; and who would determine salvage or removal costs (some speakers asked that a third party determine salvage value).

The board did not vote on the settlement at the meeting. The final business item was a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved by voice vote.