St. Clair County commission votes to appeal judge’s ruling on solar health regulation

The St. Clair County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 19 to appeal a circuit-court ruling that invalidated the county's solar energy public-health regulation, after holding a closed session with legal counsel.

Chairperson Samasco recessed the board to closed session for a written legal opinion on the solar litigation and returned at 7:18 p.m. to take a public vote, saying the board would follow the Open Meetings Act procedures. Commissioner David Rushing moved to file an appeal of the circuit-court decision; the motion was seconded and the roll call vote was unanimous in favor.

Why it matters: Residents and several public commenters told the board that solar projects pose risks to health, water and farmland. Sandra Richardson of Fort Gratiot told the board that stream and Great Lakes impacts and existing PFAS contamination are reasons the county should continue legal efforts. Kevin Watkins, president of the local NAACP branch, told commissioners that the advisory board of health urged caution and a full public review before any policy changes and asked the board to pause personnel consolidation at the health department until statutory compliance can be confirmed. "Pause, review, and assure full compliance with state law and transparency requirements before moving forward," Watkins said.

Board discussion centered on the legal posture and public-health rationale for appealing. Commissioners noted much of the appellate work is already prepared and that an appeal would proceed de novo before a three-judge Court of Appeals panel. County counsel and other commissioners said a published appellate opinion could produce binding guidance for companies, residents and local governments. Commissioner Lisa (surname not specified in the transcript) said the appeal will not stop solar development outright but could lead to mitigations that better protect residents.

The vote: The motion to appeal passed on a roll-call vote with Commissioners Trello, Zeller, Rushing, VandenBosch, Angie, Beaton and Chairperson Samasco recorded as voting "Yes." The chair said the county will proceed with appellate briefs and arguments.

Background and next steps: The board had discussed the matter earlier in the meeting after a recommendation from the county advisory Board of Health and returned from closed session to vote. Officials said most of the legal groundwork for an appeal has been done and that pursuing an appeal is not expected to be cost-prohibitive. If the Court of Appeals issues a published opinion the case could be appealed further to the state Supreme Court.

Public reaction at the meeting included repeated pleas to continue legal efforts and to seek protections for farmland, well water and neighborhoods. Commissioners asked staff and counsel to proceed with appellate filings and to notify the public of the legal timeline.

The meeting record shows the appeal motion and vote; no additional policy change was adopted at this meeting beyond the decision to pursue appellate review.