Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County reviews draft ordinances for solar farms and data centers; attorney warns of enforcement and litigation risks
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft ordinance language to restrict solar farms and data centers on agricultural land and discussed enforcement, decommissioning and possible domestic-content language; the county prosecutor cautioned that aggressive restrictions could be hard to enforce and vulnerable to litigation.
Washington County commissioners spent a substantial portion of their June 1 meeting reviewing draft ordinance language to regulate solar farms and data centers, with the county prosecutor cautioning that extreme restrictions could be difficult to enforce and expose the county to legal challenges.
Prosecuting Attorney True Pearce said he had drafted language and sent it to the commissioners and recommended they refine their policy direction before sending it to Planning and Zoning. Pearce said the drafts were written “with the idea that we are protecting ag ground” but urged commissioners to consider defensibility in court, noting that the more extreme the restrictions, “the crazier the things that you put out there, the more reasons or teeth it gives them in litigation.”
Commissioner Gordon Wilkerson pressed for stronger protections for agricultural land and suggested incorporating language that would prefer U.S.-manufactured components for developments. Wilkerson said, “If a product is manufactured in the United States of America, it shall be used in the development of this, in this development.” Pearce responded that enforcement could be impractical, calling enforcement “the biggest issue I see” and noting tracking supply chains could become onerous.
The commissioners discussed definitions and examples other counties have used. Wilkerson referenced Twin Falls and Jerome counties as models for defining agricultural land and setting decommissioning financial assurances; Pearce said the draft already seeks to protect A1 agricultural ground and suggested keeping language defensible and focused on safety, water rights and land use to lower litigation risk. Commissioners discussed decommissioning rates and the frequency of reviewing financial assurances.
Pearce also advised balancing strict local preferences against state and federal law and practical enforcement capacity. He said it would be possible to add preferential-purchase language but warned that doing so could create enforceability problems and potential legal exposure. Commissioners asked Pearce to revise the draft based on their feedback and to circulate updated language for further review.
The board continued discussion on the draft ordinances and recessed at 12:24 p.m. until its June 8 meeting; Pearce recommended finalizing policy decisions first so Planning and Zoning can proceed efficiently.
