During last week’s Navajo County Board of Supervisors meeting, County Manager Bryan Layton provided a review and response to the board and those present regarding resident concerns regarding county operations pertaining to renewable energy. Layton provided a breakdown of the history of renewable energy, beginning with the 80% property tax sanctioned by the state in 2000.
In his presentation, Layton spoke on the need to balance public outcry against wind and solar projects with the rights of private property owners, which use their land for these projects. “The balance point, provided by the legislature, are regulation powers. That’s the power of zoning, setbacks, buffering, permitting requirements and other standards.”
Enhancements done in 2025 to strengthen ordinances were reviewed, as well as the difference between special use permits and development agreements, which are now used by the county due to being legally binding and providing greater certainty and adaptability to the county.
“The concern about water usage and water sustainability is probably the most frequent concern that I hear from the public and from you as individual board members,” Layton stated, specifically regarding how much water is used to build windmill turbines. Using the West Camp II located North of Joseph City as an example, Layton explained that 18,000 gallons of water is used per turbine, equaling 2.6 million gallons for all 144 turbines being constructed. Layton acknowledged the size of that number but created necessary context for water usage. “Some things to keep in mind: It is a one-time use for construction, wind turbines do not require the use of water for ongoing electricity production,” he added that in comparison, 2.6 million gallons of water is roughly the equivalent to a week of watering for a single 18-hole golf course operating under Arizona Department of Water Resources’ allotment.
Another issue presented by residents was a need for more public input, which the board plans to mend with the implementation of a two-meeting process. Meeting one will be for project proposals, which will include technical details, outlines and terms, as well as developer input and public comment. Meeting two will provide updates based on the previous meeting, as well as input from community and developers once again.
Decommissioning standards for renewable projects and security bonds were also reviewed.
In comparing 79 benchmark requirements for renewable ordinances in the counties of Navajo, Apache, Cochise, Coconino and Yavapai, Layton stated that it could be argued that Navajo County’s has the most comprehensive requirements based on the research. “The survey shows that Navajo County’s ordinance and development agreement process overall is not deficient compared to others,” later adding that it is “Comparatively, very strong.” The survey revealed that the majority of Navajo County’s requirements were labeled as either greater, or equal/comparable to other counties, with only six labeled as having lesser than or no requirements.
The six requirements found within the county that were flagged as not in depth as others were in relation to solar, including total acre limit, periodic soil testing, glare study, height restrictions, setbacks and groundcover.
Board directed staff to look at other counties in an effort to refine the county’s requirements on soil testing.
Layton clarified that these markers do not indicate good or bad requirements, but rather are indicative that the language within those requirements could be viewed as either stronger or weaker in comparison to the others, and that the language and implementation varies greatly in each county.
Despite the many calls to stop renewables from entering the county, Layton explained that in reality, it isn’t that easy. “Supervisors, we understand that some residents do not see the value in renewables, and even see them as a negative. Requests to rescind the updated ordinance and the comprehensive plan, however well meaning, would not stop the developments and would only remove all the additional protections and safeguards we’ve discussed today.”
During call to the public on the presentation, five county residents spoke. Karen Allen said that while Layton’s presentation covered many of her concerns, she would still like to see more public input and transparency from beginning to end. She further stated her opinion on renewables options, saying, “I don’t see the need for wind and solar if there’s a proposed plan for a nuclear power plant in the Joseph City area.” While there are currently no specific plans for nuclear plant development, Arizona Public Service will be converting Cholla Power Plant, which was a coal plant that closed in 2025, to natural gas plant with an estimated completion date 2029.
Layton responded to these concerns, stating that all studies for West Camp II have been published online, but staff will make efforts to post studies as soon as possible for the public to view.
County resident Brent Meyer claimed that he didn’t see public being considered in the balance between private property rights and residents that are anti-renewable companies, “Where do we weigh on that balance?” he asked, referring to the public. This despite several mentions of public input and consideration during the presentation, along with the fact that Layton labeled one side of that balance being members of the public that are against renewable energy.
Holbrook Councilmember Robert Black also spoke, particularly expressing complaints about the nightly blinking of red lights at the West Camp II, which were expected by the county to stop being continuous back in June.
Layton acknowledged this issue of the aircraft detection lighting system, apologizing for the delay and explaining they are required to be off by ordinance unless an aircraft is in the area, but have remained on due to pending Federal Aviation Administration certification. “If they’re not all off right now, they should be turning off. And in the future, any of those red blinking lights should be turned off after FAA certification.”
Supervisor Jason Whiting asked for clarification from County Attorney Brad Carlyon on the legal abilities of the county regarding renewable projects, which clarified that the state does not allow the county to prohibit renewable projects outright and prohibition would have to be done on a federal or state level, something that has been reiterated in prior meetings. “The restrictions you [Board of Supervisors] put in place would have to achieve a legitimate government purpose and could not be a centrifuge for prohibition,” explained Carlyon when asked by Whiting if the county could make ordinances so restrictive they become prohibitive.
The county has provided clarification on its role in renewable development in numerous board meetings with little impact on those attending the meetings in opposition of this type of development. As noted in prior board meetings, approaching state legislature regarding the issues may be more impactful as the state sets the statutes that the county must abide by.
