Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Commission denies standing in appeals of Nine Mile data center and related projects after extended public challenge
Summary
After extended public comment and legal argument alleging inadequate Planning Commission findings, the Duchesne County Commission denied standing for appellants challenging approvals for the Nine Mile data center complex, Wells Draw power plant and solar facility, and the ReWater expansion.
The Duchesne County Commission on April 27 held a de novo public hearing on multiple appeals of the Planning Commission’s April 2 approvals for the Nine Mile data center complex and related facilities, including a natural gas power plant, a solar facility, and an expanded produced-water operation. The commission ultimately denied the appellants’ appeals for lack of standing.
Resident Moreen Henderson, speaking first, raised concerns about transparency, the proposed data center’s size, generator use, and culinary water sourcing, asking whether Johnson Water District or disposal ponds would supply cooling or culinary needs. "We need to know these answers," Henderson said, voicing concerns about water availability and air quality during inversion events.
Andrea "Annie" Glade, representing appellant Diana Meacham Davies and a coalition of residents and landowners, presented the principal legal arguments. She contended the Planning Commission’s findings were legally deficient under Duchesne County Code Section 8-13-4 and Utah land-use law because they lacked site-specific evidence, including wildlife surveys, baseline noise and light studies, water-right documentation, traffic and road-use analysis for Gate Canyon and Wells Draw Road, and Section 404 jurisdictional determinations for stormwater and pond construction.
Glade argued the approvals improperly segmented an integrated project — the data center, solar facility, natural gas plant and ReWater ponds — and deferred essential findings to future permitting, which she said is not a lawful substitute for upfront land-use findings. She urged the commission to reverse or remand the April 2 approvals and require a unified, evidence-based review.
Commissioner Greg Miles asked whether the appellants demonstrated damage distinct in kind from the general community; counsel and speakers reiterated concerns about water, air quality and impacts on recreation and wildlife corridors. After discussion, Commissioner Jeff Chugg moved to deny the initial appeal by Moreen Henderson for lack of standing; the motion passed unanimously. Later, Commissioner Tracy Killian moved to deny the broader group appeals (Nine Mile Data LLC, Wells Draw Energy LLC, Wells Draw Solar, and ReWater LLC) for lack of standing; that motion also passed with unanimous votes from Commissioners Killian, Chugg and Miles.
The commission’s action resolved the administrative appeals by concluding the appellants lacked standing to pursue reversal at this stage; the record reflects extensive substantive concerns raised by residents and their counsel about water rights, wildlife, cumulative impacts and adequacy of the administrative findings, but the commission did not remand or reverse the earlier Planning Commission approvals during this hearing.