Does the governor love solar more than jobs? That question may be answered from a case originating in Kittitas County.

A few local farmers are trying to contract with Tuusso Energy to lease their land for the Columbia Solar Project. The project would construct five solar farms on five different locations in Kittitas County, Washington. All five sites would be constructed on 232 leased acres in the county.

However, a county ordinance has placed a temporary moratorium on solar projects until the full impact can be analyzed.

The solar company circumvented the county’s input and appealed to the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to obtain a conditional use permit. On April 17^th, the council approved an expedited review of the Tuusso project. The council has two months to make a recommendation to Governor Inslee who will have the final say.

Now, Washington state will have the chance to see if Governor Inslee values solar energy more than jobs. If the governor rules against the county and in favor of the solar project, he is sacrificing less than half a percent of Kittitas county’s farmland for solar. Yet just last year the Governor vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have allowed development along railroads and created thousands of jobs because it would have also affected less than half a percent of Clark county’s farmland.

Additionally, Clark county’s farmland was not prime ground but three of the five land parcels in the proposed solar project are actively farmed, prime, irrigated land.

We don’t oppose a farmer’s ability to use land to its best and proper use. We do, however, generally support local control and solutions. The issue with this case is that the county’s authority has been usurped by the state, weakening the voters’ voice.

Local governments should have authority over planning because they are closer to those who are impacted and are more likely to be held accountable.

According to the courts, Washington state law recognizes that “conditional use permits are characterized by discretionary decision making.” In Phillips v. City of Brier (1979) it was stated that:

“While courts may disagree with the decision of municipal bodies in granting or not granting conditional use permits, such a disagreement standing alone does not provide the basis for judicial interference in such municipal decisions. Those decisions, as here, rest with the political body of the municipality which is answerable to the voters.”

Kittitas County has designed its codes in accordance with the state’s Growth Management Act and the requirement to “preserve ‘rural character.’” A similar case involving Kittitas County and another solar project was appealed to the state Supreme Court. The court sided with the county, stating that “Preserving rural character is one of the conditions that must be met.”

The conditional use permit for TUUSSO’s application failed to meet the rural character requirement and would have been denied by the county had they been able to pass their own judgement. Instead, TUUSSO fled to the safety of a state council that focuses less on local interests and more on special interests. Now, Kittitas county citizens must wait on the expedited review of the Council and the decision of the governor, who will decide if the rules can be broken for solar but not for other rural jobs.