Applicant urges preemption to site 470 MW Watoma solar; Benton County says loss of GMAD land is unmitigable

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council heard competing arguments Sept. 25 over whether the governor should be recommended to preempt Benton County land‑use rules so the Watoma Solar Energy Project can be sited in the county.

Erin Anderson, counsel for applicant InterJAX Renewable Development USA (represented on the record by Energex staff), told the council there is “only 1 topic before the council today, and that is land use,” and urged the body to recommend preemption under the Energy Facility Site Location Act (RCW 80.50). Anderson said state policy and precedent permit preemption when local rules conflict with the state’s energy‑siting objectives and that FSEC staff’s mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) contains detailed conditions that would address local concerns if the council recommends approval with a site certification agreement (SCA).

The applicant described the project as a 470‑megawatt photovoltaic facility with a four‑hour battery energy storage system, a substation and a short overhead generation‑type transmission segment. Company witness Laura O'Neil said InterJAX initially leased 5,852 acres, identified a 4,573‑acre project area and expects to fence about 2,978 acres that would be unavailable for agricultural use during operations; she emphasized that the ASC and the MDNS include soil‑monitoring, decommissioning and five‑year post‑restoration monitoring obligations and that Energex would post a bond to secure restoration.

Benton County counsel Leanne Holt told the council the county’s 2018–21 comprehensive‑plan updates and subsequent ordinance amendments reflect an explicit policy choice to protect agricultural lands (the GMAD/ALTEX designations cover roughly 58% of the county’s land). Holt argued the county’s position is that “there are no feasible conditions that sufficiently protect its interest” in the temporary—but potentially long‑lasting—loss of nearly 3,000 acres and asked the council to recommend against preemption.

County planning officials said the change that removed major solar from the list of conditionally allowed uses in the GMAD (Ordinance 2021‑004, adopted Dec. 21, 2021) was the product of the county’s periodic update and ALTEX analysis. Benton County witnesses said the county treats irrigated, dryland and range land consistently under the ALTEX framework and that a wholesale conversion of ALTEX acreage is not reasonably mitigable by standard SCA conditions.

Landowner witnesses appearing for participating property owners, including Wally Jossart (investment manager for Watoma Farms) and Robin Robert (Robert Ranch), described declining aquifer levels, recent investments in well rehabilitation and plans to use lease revenue to fund vineyard expansion, ponds and other on‑farm improvements. Jossart said lease revenue is a necessary funding source for the vineyard rebirth; Robert said the project would enable the family to continue ranching and ranch investments, and he supported strong decommissioning and bond requirements.

Council members also questioned witnesses about fire risk, tribal coordination, cumulative impacts and whether the energy generated would be consumed in Washington; the applicant said it had engaged tribes via FSEC and DAP, and that tribal input resulted in design changes, while county staff said the county relied on technical agencies for environmental condition recommendations and focused its limited resources on the land‑use consistency adjudication rather than the MDNS technical review.

The council did not render a decision at the hearing. Judge Dan Gerard closed the record and stated he will prepare draft proposed findings; parties may file post‑hearing briefs within one week of the record close (deadline Oct. 2 was set on the record). The council will deliberate after considering the full record and the judge’s draft findings.

What’s next: The presiding judge will circulate draft findings and the council will deliberate and vote on a recommendation to the governor; parties may also file the post‑hearing briefs the judge permitted.