Emery County moves to pursue ordinance restricting large-scale solar after public outcry over Poison Springs project

The Emery County Commission voted May 5 to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would limit future large-scale solar siting in the county after residents, ranchers and conservation groups raised concerns about wildlife habitat and the loss of grazing AUMs tied to a proposed Poison Springs/Drunkard's Wash solar project.

Leon McElprein, a grazing permit holder who addressed the commission during the public-comment period, said he would personally lose grazing AUMs if the project proceeds: "I am the loser here," he said, adding that the allotments are scarce and once lost are gone. Eric Luke, representing Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife, urged the commissioners to oppose the proposal because the planned site lies in "some of the best and most critical deer and elk winter range" on that side of the mountain and covers roughly 4,200 acres of habitat.

Paul Gascoigne, a development director for Nadara who said the developer has worked on the project since 2021, said the plan currently contemplates about a 3,300-acre footprint and that the team holds a lease with SITLA. Gascoigne said the project faces large mitigation demands from the Division of Wildlife Resources — he cited a DWR request for roughly $6.5 million — and that recent state policy changes (a new wind and solar tax) increase the project's costs. "We've been working on this project since 2021 for over 5 years," he said, and asked to be allowed to return with a formal application.

Tim Hemstreet, vice president of resource development for PacifiCorp, told commissioners that the utility views solar as one component of a broader resource mix and urged thoughtful siting rather than a blanket prohibition: "We don't see solar as being in competition with coal," he said, arguing that diversified generation supports the power system while noting the need for transmission to connect new projects.

Commission discussion centered on wildlife impacts, water and reclamation questions, and the cumulative number of projects proposed in Emery County. One commissioner said a local ordinance that sets clear siting guidelines would be more useful than a blanket ban, while others argued that the county should use ordinance power to halt further projects on public lands. By roll call, the motion to pursue an ordinance declaring the county "full" for further solar development passed (majority approval; recorded votes: two commissioners in favor, one opposed). The commission did not adopt final ordinance language at the meeting; the action directs staff to draft an ordinance and return with recommended language and next steps.

Next steps: the commission directed staff to prepare ordinance language for future consideration and signaled interest in a formal letter of opposition to SITLA for the Drunkard's Wash proposal; no final ordinance or binding land-use prohibition was adopted at the meeting.