Washington County seems ready to move on wind power rules

WASHINGTON — County supervisors say they’ve finalized wording for an ordinance governing wind turbines, with a meeting agenda on Aug. 13 promising to set public hearing dates required to enact the new local laws.

If passed, the county code changes would effectively block large-scale wind power development, requiring the generators be placed at least a half-mile from occupied structures, unless the building’s owner signs a waiver. While turbine construction would technically remain possible, it has yet to occur in any county that’s enacted similar language across the state.

“The company that’s promoting it says they wouldn’t be able to go forward with the project,” Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said. “If this is such a good thing, and the people are for it, then they’re going to waive that half-mile … but in order to take into consideration the people and their property rights that don’t want to participate, that’s why I proposed the half-mile.”

Washington County’s proposed rules would add other restrictions as well, including a property development guarantee that would require wind power developers to reimburse landowners within two miles, if their real estate sold for less than its market rate. The clause is based on concerns that turbines would become eye sores and lower nearby property values, despite U.S. Department of Energy and peer-reviewed study findings to the contrary.

Deriva Energy, which has proposed a massive 200 MW turbine development on rented farm fields north of County Road G36, has argued the value guarantee would introduce risk for investors that could be impossible to calculate.

A representative from the company did not reply to a request for comments. Deriva spokespeople have previously argued that the contentious rules would shut down development efforts, cutting off a chance at dozens of long-term jobs and $40-$50 million in county tax revenue over 25 years

Supervisors have said, sometimes sarcastically, that the company should put its money where its mouth is, if it believes the studies suggesting minimal impacts on property values.

“We’re being a little tongue-in-cheek here,” Supervisor Marcus Fedler said. “They basically said that this isn’t going to be a problem … so it’s not going to be a problem.”

The proposed ordinance made a few amendments to a version last discussed in March, lengthening setback requirements from property lines to twice the height of a given turbine. A procedural vote to begin public hearing preparations followed, passing in a 3-2 tally. Supervisors Richard Young and Bob Yoder voted no.

Young said he worried the property value guarantee could be impossible to prove, pitting land owners against “a floor of lawyers” at energy companies, and said he worried about unnecessarily restricting the property rights of residents who did want turbines on their land, whether due to environmental awareness or the rental cash flow from energy companies.

“Some of the farmers I’ve talked to have said, ‘What gives you the right to tell me what I can do with my property?’” Young said. “I’ve always been a property rights person. I agree with them.”

Yoder said his vote came in spite of constituents’ concerns, after hearing people from his district complain that turbines might impede their neighbors’ property rights, and others he said “just don’t want them.” The supervisor voted against a similar ordinance in 2021 as well, before that debate fizzled out when a developer abruptly withdrew its plans in the county.

While the ordinance is weeks from final enactment, last week’s vote to move forward does not bode well for prospective wind developers. A 3-2 tally, if it’s maintained after all three required public hearings, would be enough to write the proposals into law.

“We still have to go through the process,” Seward said. “This is not a done deal.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com