More holdups for Washington Co. wind ordinance

WASHINGTON — The Washington County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday deliberated over a proposed ordinance governing wind turbines, before ultimately deciding to leave the policy on a back burner while a road use agreement and decommissioning requirements referenced by the code are drafted.

The policy is likely to make or break plans for a wind farm in the county, where power company Deriva Energy is considering a plan to build dozens of the generators on leased farmland across a roughly 46 square mile area north of Washington. Rumors have long circulated that another developer, RWE Renewables, is considering work in Washington County’s southern edges as well, as it considers a facility in neighboring Henry County.

While the ordinance itself would govern setbacks, turbine reflective colors, lighting, and myriad other operating details, language in the code suggests it would pass with other documents attached. Those include a boilerplate road use agreement governing construction of the heavy generators, and decommissioning requirements upon their eventual removal.

County Attorney Nathan Repp, joined by other department heads, urged supervisors to hold off on a vote for the ordinance until those documents are finished.

“For the purposes of this ordinance, it would probably be preferable to reference a specific road use agreement which we can put in place before this, rather than just any road use agreement,” he said. “That leaves it open for a lot of interpretation, I think.”

Although supervisors plan to continue ordinance discussions as the attachments are drafted, the latest delay sets a familiar tone for Washington County, where renewable energy has often proven a hot topic.

The all-Republican Board of Supervisors found themselves clashing in debates about the rights of individual landowners versus those of corporations, or the county’s role of regulation versus the whims of a risk-filled free market. Elected officials have previously voiced concerns as well about wind developments’ lack of a local tax impact, as well as general skepticism about other renewable energy developments, like a solar facility soon to begin construction north of Ainsworth.

A different wind energy ordinance proposal had the board split 2-2 when one seat was vacant in 2021, although a tiebreaking vote was canceled after a developer scrapped their construction plans at the last minute. Another county ordinance, governing taxation of the turbines, passed on a narrow 3-2 tally in October of last year, despite initially appearing uncontroversial.

At a meeting on Jan. 27, supervisors continued to debate several aspects of the latest ordinance draft, with some key pieces of the policy still unresolved.

A few supervisors have repeated calls for a half-mile setback requirement between turbines and non-participating properties.

A spokesperson for Deriva, however, said that kind of language would far exceed the industry standard of 1,000-1,500 foot setbacks, and force the company to pull plans from Washington County.

“There are always a handful of folks spread out across a project that just are not interested in any participation agreement,” said Deriva Director of Development Jeff Neves, in an email to county officials this week. “There is no fix to the half-mile restriction (if the) landowners that want to participate in the project cannot use their private property because the adjacent or non-participating landowner does not allow it and the setback carves off everything around them. I do not see how it is fair if a non-participant does not accept being paid for participating, and the developer proposes a safe setback, but the county requires a much larger setback with no solution.”

  Buy Photo

Supervisors, however, said the onus was on developers to entice landowners in the project area. The draft ordinance includes a process to waive setback requirements, as long as those on affected properties agree, a caveat that would likely involve negotiations before bringing the waiver request before the board.

“If wind projects are such a good thing, and people are in favor of it, they are going to waive that half a mile, and you’re going to be able to have your wind farm,” Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said. “If people are not willing to do that, then that’s a pretty good indication that the general population does not want a wind farm.”

Another disputed part of the draft ordinance involves a property value guarantee.

As written, the proposal would require wind developers to reimburse landowners within two miles of a turbine who can’t sell their property after six months of marketing it, if an assessor concludes the turbine caused the lack of buyer interest.

In those cases, developers would pay property owners the difference between their land’s eventual sale price and an assessor’s quote of its hypothetical value without a turbine nearby.

The U.S. Department of Energy, citing a handful of studies, says rural wind projects can reduce property values in a five-mile radius during construction, but have no observed effect on real estate pricing after they’re built.

County supervisors say that should make the property value guarantee a non-issue, unless studies are misleading or developers act in bad faith.

“You’re putting a homeowner in a position where they have to fight somebody that may have deeper pockets than they do,” said Supervisor Marcus Fedler. “This just puts it in writing that, the people who are non-participants have an out.”

Again, Neves said the suggested rule would nix the chances of any wind project’s placement in the county not due to property reimbursement expenses, but from administrative headaches.

“A broad and subjective requirement where any business would be forced into dealing with any property owners within miles of their operations … would be impossible for any business or industry to handle,” he said.

Other supervisors said they had logistical concerns about the clause, saying the risk of land investment fell on property owners rather than their neighbors, or that assessments could prove too expensive for farmers to arrange before turbines go up.

Board Chair Richard Young argued that a property value’s decline could be impossible to trace to a single cause.

“If the economy tanks, it’s not necessarily the windmill’s fault he can’t sell his property in six months,” he said.

Supervisor Stan Stoops said he worried the ordinance over-regulated the developments in general, comparing the draft code to zoning laws which the board voted to abolish several years back.

“There are farmers that want these turbines on their property,” he said. “That’s their choice. If we make these specifications, then we eliminate that chance.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com