Residents at Millard County meeting debate proposed Creekstone solar project’s effects on grazing, water and local views

Public commenters at a Millard County Commission meeting presented sharply divided views on a proposed large-scale solar project identified in public remarks as the Creekstone proposal.

Ranchers and residents who use the land for grazing warned the development would destroy key infrastructure and rural character. "I do, grazing out on the, permit out there on the the area that's under consideration for the solar panels," said Roger Oscar, a permit-holder, who told the commission the project's phase 1 footprint would remove corrals and the watering source for that block. "Once you start disrupting the forest ... the sand and the wind, and it blows out there," Oscar added, linking construction disturbance to increased airborne sand and degraded forage.

Other speakers raised concerns about project scale and water use. One commenter recalled earlier project descriptions that referenced gas-fired generation and minimal water use for livestock, and said the current discussion had shifted toward much larger acreage. "They backed up on this now ... they'll be back," a speaker said, arguing the developer could return with a larger campus. Several speakers cited figures heard in presentations or local discussion ranging from roughly 9,000 acres to as much as 30,000 acres and mentioned conversions framed as "14 square miles or 37 square miles," though speakers disagreed about the exact totals.

Supporters urged the commission to weigh economic benefits. A resident identified in the transcript as "Try 1 Larson" said it was "very, very important that we look at the financial aspects of this for the county, for the communities, and what it can bring to what we can offer to the people here," and recommended a 'yes' vote. Glenn Kessler, who identified himself as a small-business owner in solar maintenance, said, "If this does go through, I'm not gonna lie. I hope we're considered as a possible business to help them with that," while also urging preservation of local businesses and property ownership.

Speakers from Oak City pointed to local planning priorities. A speaker who identified in the transcript as Shim Callister referenced an Oak City survey result that he summarized as "93.8% of the people agree that agriculture should be [a] priority," and cautioned commissioners that many residents value the town’s rural character and agricultural future.

No formal motions or votes on the proposal were recorded during the public-comment portion of the meeting segments in the transcript provided. The session reflected a typical public-comment exchange: ranchers emphasizing impacts to grazing operations, water and scenic values, and others stressing potential county revenue and local business opportunities if the project proceeds.

What happens next was not recorded in the provided transcript: commissioners did not announce a vote or formal direction in the segments supplied. Additional staff reports, hearings or formal agenda actions would be required before the county could approve land-use changes or enter into agreements with developers.