Advisory council urges county to oppose large-scale solar on federal/SITLA lands, citing grazing and transmission concerns

The Emery County Public Lands Council on Jan. 25 advised county commissioners to oppose large-scale solar development on federal and SITLA lands in the county and asked the county attorney to prepare draft language for the commission to consider.

The advisory group's members said much of the land flagged as available in the Bureau of Land Management's Western Solar Plan maps is currently used for grazing and other "multiple use" activities. "This would bankrupt some of your ranchers," one committee member said during a heated exchange about fencing and loss of access. BLM staff emphasized that any BLM action would follow NEPA, including public comment, and that mapped areas are only potential application zones.

Why it matters: speakers warned that large solar projects on federal lands typically require fencing and interconnection infrastructure that could displace grazing allotments, block recreational access and reduce other public uses described in Emery County's general plan. Committee members also flagged local transmission constraints: staff said available green-mapped parcels depend on proximity to high-voltage lines and that current grid capacity in the region would limit how much generation could realistically be added.

BLM staff summarized the national-level plan and local status: the Western Solar Plan identifies areas that would be excluded and areas available for application; in Emery/Carbon counties the presenter cited roughly 160,000 acres mapped as "green" in this analysis and said only one incomplete local application was currently active. "Any application would go through our normal NEPA process and include public comment," the presenter said, stressing that environmental analysis and transmission studies are part of the review.

The council did not take a formal ordinance-level vote (the committee is advisory), but members asked the county attorney to draft resolution language that would convey strong opposition and highlight county concerns about preserving grazing, base-load capacity and multiple use. Legal advisers and several members cautioned about using the word "prohibit," noting federal and state supremacy could expose the county to legal challenge; alternatives discussed included "strongly opposed" or language that reserves approval for site-specific findings.

Next steps: the advisory council will forward its recommended wording to the county commission and may ratify or refine language via email before the commission places a formal resolution on its agenda. The commission retains final authority to adopt, amend or reject any resolution.

Sources: Advisory council discussion and BLM presentation to the Emery County Public Lands Council on Jan. 25; BLM staff and multiple committee speakers.