Commission denies standing in appeals of Nine Mile data center, related Wells Draw permits

Duchesne County Commissioners on April 27 declined to overturn Planning Commission approvals for the Nine Mile Data LLC project and related Wells Draw facilities after determining the appellants lacked standing to proceed.

The noon public hearing drew large public attendance and multi-hour legal argument from representatives for the appellants. Andrea “Annie” Glade, speaking on behalf of multiple petitioners and appellant Diana Meacham Davies, told the Commission the Planning Commission’s April 2 approvals for the data center, a paired solar facility, a natural-gas power plant, and a ReWater produced-water expansion were legally defective. Glade said the administrative record lacked site-specific wildlife or migration surveys, baseline noise and lighting studies, traffic and road-safety analysis for Gate Canyon/Wells Draw access, and documentation of lawful water rights or approved change-of-use filings. “The April 2nd approvals must be vacated and reversed, or at a minimum, remanded for a unified review,” she said, arguing the approvals relied on future agency actions rather than present findings.

Resident appellant Moreen Henderson urged greater transparency and pre-conditions from project proponents. “We don’t have any information about what the center is,” Henderson told the Commission, raising questions about the data center’s size, whether solar fields would raise ambient heat, the number and use of backup generators, and whether culinary or cooling water would come from Johnson Water District or produced-water ponds.

Appellants pressed legal and factual points including alleged project segmentation (approving the solar facility separately though it serves the data center), cumulative impacts of multiple industrial uses in the South Myton Bench corridor, and the absence of a documented lawful water supply in the record. They asked the County to halt ground disturbance pending full, integrated review and to issue detailed written findings.

Commissioners moved instead on standing. Commissioner Tracy Killian made a motion to deny the appeals for lack of standing; Commissioner Jeff Chugg seconded. Commissioners Killian, Chugg and Commission Chairman Greg Miles voted aye and the motion passed. The denial leaves Planning Commission approvals in place; appellants may pursue judicial review, which they referenced as available under county and state procedures.

Why it matters: The contested approvals cover several interdependent projects—data center, solar array, natural-gas plant and produced-water storage—that appellants say should be reviewed together because they will operate in tandem and create cumulative effects on water, air quality, wildlife corridors and recreational access to Nine Mile Canyon. Commissioners’ procedural ruling did not address the substantive allegations about environmental, traffic, or water-rights impacts.

Next steps: The decision not to reverse the Planning Commission on standing grounds preserves the status of the April 2 approvals for now. Appellants indicated they intend to pursue available judicial remedies; project proponents and county staff did not announce any immediate changes to phasing or construction plans at the April 27 meeting.