A proposed moratorium on large-scale wind or solar projects was voted down by the Carroll County Quorum Court during a contentious two-hour meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 21.
The proposal, sponsored by District 2 Justice of the Peace Bruce Wright and District 7 JP Kellie Matt, garnered only three supporting votes. District 3 JP Harrie Farrow voted yes along with Wright and Matt but the remaining eight JPs all voted against the measure.
The proposed ordinance clearly was aimed at slowing the progress of Scout Clean Energy’s planned Nimbus Project near Green Forest. The project has been the leading topic of discussion at quorum court meetings for the past several months, with opponents of Scout’s plans citing their concerns about potential environmental risks as well as what they say are potential harmful effects on health and safety for both humans and animals. Supporters of the project, including property owners who have signed lease agreements to allow Scout to place towers and wind turbines on their land, say they should be allowed to do as they see fit with their property.
The proposed ordinance would have imposed a one-year moratorium on the construction of any industrial wind or solar energy facility and would have automatically renewed for successive six-month periods unless the quorum court voted not to continue it. It would have prohibited new construction as well as the continuation of any construction already started.
District 6 JP Craig Hicks said that opponents of the project have the right to take legal action on their own without the involvement of the county government.
“You always have the right to take it to court,” Hicks said. “No one wants to do that because you have to pay to do that.”
Hicks said he would vote against the proposed moratorium in order to protect residents’ property rights.
“A no vote from me on this ordinance is not a vote for the windmills,” he said. “It’s a vote not to tell people what they can and can’t do with their property.”
District 1 JP Jack Deaton said he was working on another strategy but declined to share details. He said he originally thought he would support a moratorium but changed his mind after reviewing the proposed ordinance.
One section of the bill says that “(d)uring the period of the moratorium, the Quorum Court shall endeavor to complete all reasonable and necessary review, study and analysis pertaining to industrial wind and solar energy facilities.”
“Which means that if any one of y’all doesn’t believe we’re doing our jobs, you can file charges against us,” Deaton said.
Carroll County prosecuting attorney Tony Rogers and deputy prosecuting attorney Steven Simmons told JPs that if a moratorium was adopted by JPs and challenged by Scout in court, the county would have to retain outside counsel to defend the legislation.
“I don’t think you understand, if you get sued by a big, multinational company, what that means,” Rogers said in response to a question from Farrow.
Simmons said a legal fight over the issue could last for years.
“I’m not going to be intimidated by big money,” Farrow said. “… I didn’t get elected in this position to be weak and timid and afraid, even when I know exactly what I’m up against. … I’m not going to sell my county out because I’m afraid.”
District 10 JP Jerry King said he was not pleased with the wind farm project but was concerned about the legal ramifications if the quorum court approved a moratorium.
“For the record, do I like ’em? No, I don’t like ’em,” King said. “When I go to Green Forest and see ’em, am I going to like it? No, I’m not going to like it. But I have done my homework here. I have called lawyers and they basically said, if you try to shut this down, the county will get sued.”
King also said residents in his district have told him they oppose any move to restrict what they can do on their property.
County Judge David Writer told JPs that $15,000 had been budgeted to retain an attorney should the need arise.
“That $15,000 would buy us 50 hours,” Writer said. “One week, basically, of work. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s the amount of money it takes.”
“I don’t think the moratorium is the way to go,” Deaton said. “I’m working on a different aspect. All it does is set us up. There’s people out there that don’t agree with what we’re doing, then we’ve got to start dealing with the prosecuting attorney’s office because they’re going to bring charges against us.”
Deaton, Hicks and King voted against the proposed moratorium along with District 4 JP Hunter Rivett, District 5 JP Matt Phillips, District 8 JP Francisco Pedraza, District 9 JP Roger Hall and District 11 JP John Howerton.
Mark Wengierski, vice president of East Region development for Scout, addressed JPs during public comments. In response to a question from Matt about decommissioning the turbines, Wengierski said the company has a bond for that purpose.
“Do you guys decommission them if something happens?” Matt asked. “Are you going to clean them up after they’ve been there for a thousand years?”
“In our wind leases we have a requirement to place a bond to remove these facilities when the project goes away,” Wengierski responded. “What we’d be willing to do is not only name our landowners on this bond, we’d be willing to name Carroll County on this bond as well, to ensure that those funds are there if anything happens to this project.”
Howerton followed up by asking if Scout would be willing to “put that bond on Day 1 instead of Year 20.”
Wengierski said most of the contracts with landowners are between 15 and 20 years.
“We’d be willing to work with the county and place it before that contract terminates,” he said. “Maybe not on Year 1 … but we’d absolutely work with the county and place it before that contract terminates.”
Farrow scolded Wengierski over Scout’s efforts to drum up anti-zoning sentiment among county residents.
“When you started speaking, you threw in there, at one point, ‘potential zoning,’ even though we’ve never discussed zoning in regards to this project,” Farrow said. “Never. And Scout keeps bringing up that word knowing that it is a fear-mongering phrase that will rile people up. And you just did it again.”
“I’ll give you my definition,” Wengierski replied. “You restrict private property rights …” At that point, Farrow interjected.
“Not according to any of the definitions of zoning I gave at the Carroll County meeting a couple of months ago,” she said. “So that is inaccurate and maybe you ought to look it up.”
