Heated appeals hearing: residents and petitioners challenge Planning Commission approvals for large data center and energy facilities

Duchesne County commissioners spent the afternoon hearing multiple appeals of April 2 Planning Commission approvals that cleared the way for a large data center (referred to in filings as the 9 Mile / NIMAF project) and associated natural‑gas power plant, solar facility and produced‑water operations.

The first speaker, Maureen Anderson (speaker 8), said she lives about six miles east of the proposed site and asked the county to require applicants to disclose the size of the center, the extent of associated solar farms, generator specifications, and the timing of generator use because of wildfire/inversion air quality concerns. "We don't know the size of the center... we need to know these answers," Anderson said. She urged transparency on water sourcing and said county water supply is already stressed.

A lead representative for petitioners (speaker 12, identified in the record as Annie speaking on behalf of Diana and others) presented extensive legal objections. The representative argued the Planning Commission’s April 2 findings were legally insufficient under Duchesne County code section 8‑13‑4 and Utah land use law because they (1) lacked site‑specific wildlife, air, noise and lighting studies; (2) failed to identify a lawful water source or state engineer approvals for water use; (3) improperly segmented an integrated industrial project into separate conditional use permits; and (4) deferred important analyses to future permits rather than basing findings on the existing record. The representative requested that the County Commission vacate or remand the approvals for unified review and asked the county to issue a final written decision rather than require additional administrative appeals.

County discussion focused initially on standing. One commissioner moved to deny a specific appeal for lack of standing after the speaker (Maureen) acknowledged uncertainty about whether she met the statutory standing criteria (adjoining property owner, board/officer of the county or “adversely affected party”). The motion to deny that particular appeal for lack of standing was seconded and approved. The chair then explained the process for hearing each appeal and for evaluating damages or harm that would confer standing.

Multiple petitioners and attorneys made detailed legal arguments about cumulative impacts to 9 Mile Canyon (a recreational and cultural corridor), increased industrial traffic on access routes, wildlife migration fragmentation from permanent fencing and lighting, lack of water rights documentation, and potential Clean Water Act (section 404) jurisdictional issues for expanded produced‑water ponds. The petitioners argued that conditional use permits cannot be a placeholder for future approvals and that substantial evidence must support findings at the time of approval.

County staff and some commissioners questioned whether appellants had demonstrated a damage different in kind from the general public and engaged in back‑and‑forth about procedural posture, administrative record preservation, and the appropriate remedy (reversal, remand, or additional findings). The transcript records robust legal argument from appellants and calls for the commission to issue a consolidated, evidence‑based final decision.

At the close of the public testimony recorded in this excerpt, commissioners indicated they would take the appeals up individually to assess standing and the merits; one standing motion (for the initial speaker) was denied. No final substantive reversal or remand decision on the merits appears in the recorded portion of this meeting; appellants asked for reversal or remand and commission members asked staff and counsel clarifying procedural questions.