Pulaski County committee sends narrower 12‑month moratorium to full court after heated debate

The Pulaski County quorum court committee voted to send a narrower 12‑month moratorium on high‑intensity digital infrastructure and utility‑intensive industrial uses to the full quorum court after a lengthy discussion over two competing ordinances.

The committee rejected the broader proposal, ordinance 26I45a, which one justice described as a comprehensive framework to establish standards for infrastructure review, emergency response, public participation and utility coordination. Justice Blackwood said the broader ordinance “establishes the standards, clear standards, before additional projects are approved” and argued it would protect residents and ensure fair, consistent conditions on large developments.

County Attorney Dominique Lane cautioned the committee that either moratorium could prompt litigation. Lane said developers “potentially have vested rights” in projects that received conditional approvals and explained that moratoriums may conflict with state regulatory authorities in areas such as oil and gas and utility permitting. “It would be within their right to seek remedies in the court,” Lane said, adding that her role is to advise the court on legal risk and defend it where possible.

Committee members pressed both legal and practical questions: how new regulations would apply to projects that proceed under existing approvals, whether future projects would be subject to different rules, and who would pay for grid or water infrastructure upgrades. Members cited concerns about electrical demand (one justice raised the possibility of a 1‑gigawatt load), water consumption for cooling systems, backup‑generator emissions, noise, land disturbance and fire‑protection capability for volunteer departments.

A vote on 26I45a failed in committee (the chair announced it had failed after roll call). The committee then read the narrower ordinance, 26I52, which relies on measurable criteria and broader exemptions for telecommunications and emergency communications. The committee voted 8 ayes, 1 nay and 1 present to send 26I52 to the full quorum court with a “do pass” recommendation.

Several resident speakers urged the court to act more aggressively. During public comment, speakers from Wrightsville and nearby neighborhoods described worry about local impacts on schools, water and health and called for a stronger pause on approvals. “Let them sue us,” one resident told the committee, urging elected officials to prioritize community protection over litigation fears.

What happens next: 26I52 will appear on the full quorum‑court agenda for final consideration. Committee members and staff said they expect additional work from the planning commission and legal staff on definitions and exemptions before final readings.