SITLA lays out solar‑leasing process as Emery County raises environmental, bonding and notice concerns

Andy Benningfield, managing director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration(SITLA) energy and minerals group, told the Emery County Public Lands Council that SITLA manages roughly 3.3 million acres of surface estate and additional mineral estate "for the beneficiaries," noting that about 96% of beneficiaries are public schools. He said SITLA's portfolio includes oil and gas, coal, renewables (including solar) and geothermal and that the agency is self‑funded from lease revenue.

Benningfield and another SITLA staff member explained how surface and solar leasing works on trust lands: an internal two‑week review, then external outreach that includes a three‑week newspaper public notice, RDCC posting and county notification, during which competing offers and public comments may be submitted. "Anybody can submit an application," the SITLA official said, adding that adjoining landowners are typically notified at the leasing stage and that SITLA will forward comments to prospective lessees so they understand local concerns.

County members pushed back on what they described as gaps in environmental review and local input. A council member said trust lands "are not public land" in the federal sense and warned that projects on such lands do not automatically trigger NEPA environmental review. That concern was echoed by another member who pressed for details about pesticide and herbicide use, weed control, fire risk and "what happens to the runoff" from battery storage or construction. SITLA staff confirmed that archaeological (ARC) clearance is required on trust‑land projects but that federal NEPA generally does not apply to SITLA lands, and that most large projects nonetheless commission environmental studies to meet buyer or lender requirements.

Bonding and reclamation also dominated the discussion. SITLA staff described a process that requires lessees to post reclamation bonds for ground disturbance and to submit third‑party engineering reclamation plans; bonds are re‑evaluated every five years and can be escalated. The staffer cited a recent Millard County estimate of roughly $3,000,000 to reclaim a 200‑acre project and said salvage value of panels and equipment is considered in the bond calculation. "If they don't want to bond for reclamation, you probably don't want them on your land anyway," the official said.

Council members described local frustration that some leases have been approved without obvious public engagement and urged the county to use conditional use permits and zoning to set stronger, local safeguards. One commissioner noted the county had already passed a resolution opposing solar on state or federal lands and said an ordinance or more detailed conditional‑use requirements might provide "teeth" to protect community interests. SITLA responded that the county can impose conditional use permit requirements through its own zoning process and said SITLA would work with the county where possible, but cautioned that singling out trust land can raise legal and policy questions.

SITLA also described projects in Emery County: Hunter Solar (about 42 acres, partly on trust lands), Castle Solar (outside Huntington, mostly on trust lands), a long SR‑10 corridor project (mainly private land), the Drunkard's Wash proposal in Poison Springs (a development phase project with a queue position for Rocky Mountain Power and an estimated footprint SITLA described informally as "around two‑thousand something [acres]"), and smaller proposals including an MRE wind/solar project (about 50 MW with battery storage) and a pending substation application in Huntington to serve private solar. The staffer said the Drunkard's Wash project had not yet secured a surface‑use agreement with oil and gas lessees and had not filed for a conditional use permit with the county.

The exchange ended with council members asking SITLA to provide its presentation materials; SITLA agreed to email the slides and reiterated willingness to coordinate with county planning and zoning. The council discussed next steps, including a possible ordinance and stronger conditional‑use permit language to address reclamation bonds, weed control, runoff containment and battery safety.

The council did not vote on a new policy during the meeting; members said the matter would proceed through planning and zoning and into the commissioners' agenda for potential ordinance action.