What was really behind the denial of this Idaho solar farm? | Opinion

Ada County commissioners made a shortsighted and arbitrary decision in denying a proposal for a solar farm in a rural part of the county.

As the Idaho Statesman’s Sarah Cutler reported, Ada County commissioners on July 30 voted to deny a solar developer’s application for a nearly 2,500-acre project west of South Robinson Road and north of Kuna Cave Road that could help power nearly 45,000 homes.

Commissioners cited testimony from neighbors opposed to the proposal.

“If (solar developer Savion has) future solar projects,” commissioner Ryan Davidson said, “I hope they and other solar companies do take into consideration that people move to Idaho for a certain way of life, and people don’t really want to see that change.”

By that logic, then, why approve anything?

Why approve, for example, Spring Rock, a 2,750-house subdivision on 776 acres of land near Kuna, which Ada County commissioners approved last year?

And make no mistake, while Ada County commissioners approve massive developments like Spring Rock, the Treasure Valley is going to need more power.

Add on the needs of companies such as Meta, which is building a massive data center outside of Kuna, and Micron, which is building a new $15 billion manufacturing facility, and the valley is going to need a lot more power.

Solar is going to have to be a big part of it, and we need to get over fears that are overblown and in some cases based on misinformation.

Much of the opposition centered around how the development could “change the character” of the farming community.

But we’ll tell you what would change the character of the area: a housing development like Spring Rock.

Because here’s the thing: There aren’t many options for the land. Either develop it or leave it as farmland.

Of course, the neighbors want the owners to keep it as farmland, but the owners, who’ve been farming for decades and simply want to retire, couldn’t find any buyers who wanted to farm it.

And as one of the owners, Shane Beus said, “This property is owned privately. It’s kind of interesting; all of a sudden, it’s ‘Idaho’s farm ground,’ or my neighbor wants to claim it as his farm ground. I don’t know where they were at when it was time to pick rocks, fix the water on a Sunday morning, or bale hay all night. It is our farm ground … We have the right to do with our property as we desire.”

The commissioners were more concerned about a hypothetical impact on neighbors’ property values (which probably wouldn’t be affected by the solar farm, anyway) than they were about the very real impact on the property value of private landowners trying to sell their land to another private individual.

Ada County’s commissioners are Republicans, the party that supposedly values freedom and private property rights.

But, in essence, the commissioners, by denying the proposal, have diminished those private property rights.

When Shane Beus and his brother Steve put their land up for sale about five years ago, they didn’t get any offers.

Eventually, housing and solar-farm developers expressed interest.

The solar developers, eager to put up solar panels near a power substation, with easy access to the grid, were offering more money than the housing developers.

The free market at work.

But Ada County commissioners seemed to bend over backwards to look for any reason to deny the application.

Davidson even said he made his decision based on the health and safety of the community.

First of all, we’re not talking about a company dumping hazardous waste. Solar farms are passive and pose little to no health and safety risks to the community.

Further, isn’t Davidson the same guy who voted against an ordinance banning fireworks in unincorporated parts of the county on the grounds of freedom?

Yes, that’s the same guy, who thought nothing of the health and safety of the community when it comes to the high possibility of starting a wildfire and burning land and potentially houses but suddenly becomes concerned about health and safety when it means solar panels.

And, as Steve Beus pointed out, unlike housing developments, solar farms “don’t use any roads; they don’t use any schools; they don’t add traffic.” But they do provide property tax revenue for the county.

With such unfounded grounds for denial, it seems that the denial had everything to do with simply being against solar.

Commissioner Tom Dayley said he’s got nothing against solar, but then he made some comments about how it receives government funding, which he called “tenuous.” And then he suggested that California is overproducing solar energy, which has more to do with infrastructure, storage and delivery. We have plenty of demand for solar power.

And these solar farms are going to have to go somewhere. Yes, this proposal has a few neighbors, and, yes, there are parts of Idaho that are even more remote and secluded.

But if we let neighbors dictate what gets approved and what doesn’t, we likely wouldn’t have any development at all.

The development still goes before the Canyon County commissioners. We hope they show more wisdom than Ada County commissioners and approve the proposal.

Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser and community members Greg Lanting, Terri Schorzman and Garry Wenske.