The Walworth County Commission has decided that solar power plants pose such a threat to the health and well-being of the good people of Mobridge, Glenham, Selby, Java, Lowry, and Akaska that they must be kept at least a mile away from homes and 1000 feet from property lines:
Commissioner Justin Jungwirth said when it comes to a land-use debate, what matters most is local landowners. He said he has seen support for an ordinance limiting how close solar projects can be built to homes.
“I went to the one meeting in Mobridge, and that’s the majority of what they want – there’s some other items in there that they’d want,” Jungwrith said. “Some of them were covering the ordinance, but the gist of what they’re asking for that we listened to – them being the taxpayer – is one mile and a thousand feet.”
Commissioner James Hauck explained the “one mile and a thousand feet” proposal.
“That is from the edge of your house to the first solar panel,” Hauck said. “In between that will be your grass buffer area and your fence. So, your fence is going to be closer than a mile, but it will be (at least) a mile from the wall of your house. Not the front gate or driveway. From the wall of your house to the first solar panel.”
The proposed regulations were approved on 4-1 vote. Other concerns like fire safety and potential impacts to wetlands were raised at the meeting [C.J. Keene, “Walworth County Sets Boundaries for Solar Developments,” SDPB Radio, 2023.11.20].
Let’s compare the one-mile setback for solar farms to setbacks for other industrial activities in Walworth County.
Walworth County’s zoning ordinance establishes setbacks ranging from a quarter mile to two miles for concentrated animal feeding operations, depending on the number and type of livestock:
Walworth County establishes setbacks for other industrial undertakings:
- Sand/gravel quarries, mineral exploration/extraction, rock crushers, and concrete/asphalt plants must be at least 1000 feet from residences, 120 feet from public rights-of-way, and 25 feet from property lines.
- Telecom towers over 100 feet tall: 1000 feet from off-site residences, businesses, and public buildings; 500 feet from on-site or lessor’s residence; tower height from property line. Monopole towers must be 750 feet from any other towers. Self-supporting or guyed towers must be 1500 feet from similar towers.
- Shooting ranges: 1/4 mile from residences, commercial buildings, churches, and schools; 3 miles from city limits.
- Wind turbines: 2 miles from off-site residences, businesses, and churches; 1000 feet from other buildings or structures; double turbine height (ground to vertical blade tip) from property line.
- Waste disposal sites: 1/2 mile from dump site property line to nearest residence or business.
- Junkyard/salvage yard: 1000 feet from nearest residence; 330 feet from property line or right-of-way.
- Sewage treatment plant: 1/4 mile from property line to nearest residence.
So, in the eyes of Walworth County, solar panels, which don’t moo or pee or poop, pose as much danger to the environment and rural quality of life as 12,000 grown hogs or 4,000 cattle. Solar panels, which have no moving parts, are only half as risky as the towering, whirling, ice-flinging blades of wind turbines. Solar panels, which are usually no more than 15 feet off the ground (although one study says putting them a little higher can keep them cooler and more efficient), pose over five times the risk to nearby houses as radio towers, which can be toppled by wind or devil-worshipping radical hippies. Solar panels, which don’t explode, are four times more hazardous than shooting ranges. Solar farms, which produce no noise or dust, pose more than five times the inconvenience to neighbors as gravel quarries. And solar farms, which have a keen interest in avoiding having their equipment break and pollute, pose four times the risk to the environment of landfills, which emit all sorts of pollutants into the air, water, and soil.
Walworth County looks at one of the cleanest, most promising industrial developments that could come its way and passes zoning restrictions that, compared to its other industrial setbacks, are ridiculous.
Related Reading: Walworth County is not crossed by the Dakota Access or Keystone oil pipelines. When the Public Utilities Commission approved its permit for TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline across East River, it allowed TransCanada to run its high-pressure—and, as we’ve discovered, leaky—tar sands oil pipeline right through wetlands and within 500 feet of residences.
Democracy is so wonderful.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
Today, after my pre-feast breakfast, grudznick will mediate and be thankful for the County of Walworth, and the County of Pennington, and all of the other counties. grudznick will be thankful for most of you fellows, too, and for Mr. H. And even the Cornhuskers in Nebraska. And when they come to take me to the massive feast of turkey and other meats and piles of mashed potatoes with quarts of gravy, and the red jelly slices from a can, and the pies from pumpkins and apples and prunes, grudznick will be thankful for all of it. Maybe less so for the red jelly slices from a can. Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Arndt and others.
Red state failure on parade!
May the blessings of indigestion bestow themselves on the coward grudznutz.
Missouri River Energy Services and the city of Pierre has had a system near the airport for a decade. I would venture to guess most people in Pierre are unaware of it, passively providing power for 200 homes. Fear of change and the fossil fuel’s influence on policy and politics is inhibiting progress.
Walworth County as a governmental entity is financially struggling. Communities within Walworth County are losing population and businesses. Solar development would be a good opportunity to bring jobs and tax revenue into the cities and county. What is there to fear from this development? Require a bond that would cover the removal / cleanup costs of these sites, should the solar operator bail.
Trees (shelter belts) could be planted to shield solar collectors from nearby homes.
I recently saw where solar farms were using sheep to maintain vegetation around the solar collectors. The sheep farmer interviewed was happy with the solar operation and his sheep being able to graze the land under the solar collectors.
Rather than fear these solar operations, county commissioners should educate themselves and then work to educate the public not to fear solar. If you do not change, you will disappear.
Well said Scott. The residents here are 98% Republican, live with their heads buried in the ground and in the past century, are Trump followers, gas hoggers with all their big outfits, and actually believe that it’s ag that keeps this county going. It’s fishing and hunting only that keeps the books from too far south. The county is relying on a 6-8 county jail facility to be the game changer for finances. For a county with a little over 5000 population and losing students in the public school, you’d have to pay people to move here to work the jail. No one wants to live 100 miles from a city for lousy pay and few benefits.
Good for Walworth County. There really are better places in South Dakota for the future. The kids show exactly what the problem is there, they’re leaving for a better future. Regarding that jail, they will need federal money for the project. President Obama gave Pennington County money for the builds of the county buildings when republican leadership of this country, went into the crapper under Bush. The funding was provided …with renewable energy considerations for that carrot. Old Joe Biden may want to see a place that takes renewable energy a little more serious than these goof offs that are ruining the show in Walworth County before authorizes the check. 98% republican who don’t have the juice to fund it themselves.
Wild Spring Solar by New Underwood https://www.kotatv.com/2023/01/23/wild-springs-solar-project-pennington-county-steps-into-solar-panel-energy/
Take the New Underwood exit from I-90 and go south through town towards Hwy 44. You will drive through the middle of a large solar farm just south of New Underwood. It’s in Pennington County and I do not recall any large outcry about the facility being built. It is also readily visible from I-90 if you know what to look for.
I would guess New Underwood and New Underwood Schools are receiving some benefit from the solar farm.
The approach that the commissioner(s) of Walworth is not one of LEADERSHIP, but rather the “I wanna keep my job” (get re-elected) path. Likely because without the extra income from serving on the commission they would be as broke as their constituents and needing to think about leaving as a survival strategy. That said, the constituents don’t seem too bright.
I’m still waiting to hear someone quantify for me the actual risks and harms that come from solar farms that require a one-mile setback. We let trucks and trains carrying toxic chemicals race past houses and schools with a separation of less than a city block. We have gas stations on the same block as residences. We place buzzing substations and high-voltage transmission lines far closer than a mile from inhabited structures.
So, what about solar panels on someone’s roof? Now illegal in Walworth County?
Surprised at how misleading this article is when compared to the size and location of this proposed solar effort. A solar site over twice the size of Mobridge, 3,200 acres, may better put it into perspective for some. Group think seems to be casting a shadow over human and environmental safety as well as good common sense. I commend the commissioners for considering our health and safety, there is more they can do. Solar needs to be sized and properly located where it doesn’t negatively impact people, wildlife, water, livestock, environment, and property values to name a few. Some may think solar is harmless and without hazard, they would be wrong. Of all the open space in Walworth, putting an industrial solar site on top of a watershed leading to our drinking supply, across the road from a recreation area, and a residential community, lacks the basic risk assessments necessary–just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. It also doesn’t mean solar can’t be located somewhere more suitable for its character.
To quantify concerns regarding a one-mile setback, energized panels that are on fire, cannot be extinguished by county firefighters! Solar panels are charged systems and just like lithium ion batteries entering into thermal run-away, the fire has to burn itself out, which can take days. Don’t forget about the toxicity of the smoke plumes that would detrimentally affect anyone and anything in its path, including nearby towns. All firefighters will be able to do is keep it from spreading outside the fence line. Once the fire is contained, the county has to deal with 3,200 acres of “hazardous materials” clean-up sitting directly on top of a natural watershed leading directly to the WEB water intake one-quarter mile away. This isn’t a political concern, it is a community concern for the safety of county residents and their families, as well as all residents–polluting our drinking water and risk of fire, is not a “risk” that should be taken lightly. Appreciate your compassion for our safety.
So many opinions, so I ask…if you don’t live in Walworth County, why do you care about the setbacks? If you don’t live there then you will not be affected by any of this. Also, it really does not matter what setbacks are for any other project anywhere else because if this is what the people of that county are asking for from their commissioners, then that is all that matters. They are the people that live there and they are the county taxpayers. Walworth is a farming/agriculture county so cows that moo, poop and pee are to be expected. By the way, I would remind everyone that people talk, poop and pee. This is ridiculous! Food for thought…do you carry insurance on your home, car, camper or boat? It appears that the people of Walworth County are asking their commissioners for a little “protective” insurance with these setbacks concerning their property, homes, land and home values. What is wrong with that?
We (Yankton County) just finished writing a new ordinance for solar farms of 50kw and higher. Rooftop solar panels aren’t regulated.
Facility Setback Chart
Residence, active church, business, schools….1320 ft
Municipalities …..2640 ft
Lakes, rivers and streams….660 ft
Right-of-way line….100ft if under 80 Acres. 200ft if 80 Acres or more
Property line delineating a change in ownership…..100ft if under 80 acres. 200ft if 80 acres or more
100 year flood plain….PROHIBITED
Fair questions, Mary.
I care about setbacks in any county because they can set precedents for all counties and affect developments that may have benefits and risks for all counties. It’s just like with oil and carbon dioxide pipelines: I may not live in the counties along the routes, but I have an interest in the overall impacts the projects may have if built or not built.
Plus, I care about fair and rational policymaking at every level of government. Setbacks exist to prevent harms to neighbors. Larger setbacks imply larger possible harms. What larger possible harms do solar panels have, harms greater than those of wind turbines, pipelines, chemical trains, and thousand-head dairies, that justify larger setbacks?
The fact that people want a policy does not mean it’s a fair or rational policy. The people who live in Walworth County and pay taxes (are both conditions of democratic participation? Do folks in Walworth County who pay less in taxes get less of a say?) may want a policy that is unfair or irrational. Simply wanting something does not justify it.
Walworth County currently engages in a lot of farming and ranching, but how does that status quo create a moral imperative to make it harder for county residents to engage in other industries?
“Poop and pee are to be expected”—why would technological progress and economic innovation not be expected?
@cathy, what are the setbacks for a CAFO in your county?
Bud, I don’t mislead. I present the facts as documented and ask questions. You cannot show me one line in this article that presents a false statement. I welcome your apology.
There are ranches over twice the size of Mobridge—does that mean we should impose one-mile setbacks on those ranches?
What health and safety hazards do solar farms present, and how do those health and safety hazards compare to the hazards posed by CAFOs and other large industrial operations?
The fire concern may be reasonable, but oil pipelines and chemical trains can explode and erupt into fires that are hard for local fire departments to put out, but we let those run a lot closer than a mile to residences. Why is Walworth County not imposing one-mile setbacks on comparable industries?
And notice Bud’s concern is that solar panels may catch fire or leach chemicals if not properly maintained. Cows and pigs pee and poop every day, creating constant environmental risk, but poop and pee are to be expected. Why would Walworth County afford factory farms such grace but not cleaner solar farms? Groupthink rooted in habit seems to be casting a shadow over the opportunity to promote energy and industry diversification.
Your argument assumes the Commissioner(s) of Walworth equate set-back distance to danger. They don’t. They factored annoyance into their decision. Now, gravel pits and shooting ranges as your neighbor might be annoying too, but less annoying than having 400 glaring batlights pointed in your front window when the sun is just right in the sky.
What Jerry said. Wasting resources on Walworth County is ridiculous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walworth_County,_South_Dakota
Walworth County’s population peaked in 1930 and has been steadily declining since.
One mile set back for a nice clean Solar farm? Wow, really?
Many counties are running on a stupidity setback!
We can run our solar farms in Montana and just export the power back to Dakota du Sud.
Actually, buy or set up a building, hire 10 people, make millions with an office, products or subscription based services!
The state may vote for an Orange candidate who may go to prison. We know the change is every day, every moment!
Greetings Cory and thanks for your response. We share differences in opinion–that’s okay. we can go back and forth cherry picking the good and bad about solar. Like so many, it probably wouldn’t concern me but, having an engineering background, previous experience as an emergency manager and hazardous materials inspector, and worked for the federal government for 40 years, does concern me, We do/allow a lot of stupid things that put our citizens in jeopardy. It sometimes takes a tragedy to get the (people’s/government’s attention before doing anything, and even then, end up sweeping under the rug therefore, nothing changes. I wasn’t aware of how many train accidents really took place annually until the toxic spill in the town of East Palestine OH. That accident gives me even more cause for concern. Having worked closely with Sandra National Labs and the Department of Energy, Solar has its flaws and dangers in which DOE and SNL are attempting to aid the solar industry in changing.
There is much secrecy being held back from the public in an attempt to ensure the survival of solar–can (Industrial) solar survive on its own? All solar companies and solar sites are not created equal and that too concerns me because solar sites are getting bigger and bigger and, with little to no government oversight. Studies are limited from many perspectives and when a concern or hazard surfaces, sounding the alarm to health risks etc…are thwarted to save face of solar rather than implement corrective actions and best practices–I think lobbyists, money , and solar companies are the major contributors to keeping us in the dark and putting our health at risk.
Case in point, when our own county emergency manager addressed his concern regarding the toxic composition of the solar panels leaching into the soil and our water supply, he was advised by the company that the industry was moving away from panels containing toxic metals and if available, could use the environmentally safe panels but, if not available in the supply chain, they would use the toxic panels–UNSAT in my humble opinion.
Another case in point, Sandra National Labs conducted a study regarding weather affects on solar sites, learning that solar companies are essentially hiding the negative impacts from their maintenance records. Such items are hail damage being recorded as insurance, and fires not recorded at all. If you search for (fires on solar sites) you won’t find anything outright until you find independent statistical data reported through insurance companies. Let me challenge you and our readers, find me a solar company that is up front in telling you the negative impacts of solar i.e. fires, toxic materials used in their panels and lithium Ion batteries, hail storm affects, as well as impact on property values, etc. Contrary to your statement, “Solar panels, which have no moving parts, are only half as risky as the towering, whirling, ice-flinging blades of wind turbines,” indeed, do have moving parts which companies attempt to use to defend against concerns of devastating hail storms, some do have the capability of folding vertically to minimize hail damage if they want to spend the money. Our neighboring state of Nebraska suffered a total loss of their “state of the art” solar site and the company is silent, toxic material waiting to be cleaned up from months ago. Anyway, just food for thought to my fellow citizens, don’t risk your life or put others at risk parroting marketing data, you can be confident I won’t. Thanks for the chat.
Where is Sandra Lab?
Why Lar, it’s the little sister lab right there in the 505.
Bud, with all due respect, you are just another conspiracy dude. Those panels were hit with over 100 mile per hour winds with baseball size hail. There were no farmers picking up small pieces of glass. These were broken like a windscreen on your jalopy. Get a grip man you’re heading in the same track as another person on this blog that writes epilogues of nothingness. Here is what the local newspaper says https://starherald.com/news/local/business/nppd-hopes-to-see-damaged-solar-panel-farm-recommissioned-by-the-end-of-the-year/article_3a7e83c8-66b8-11ee-94b4-8f86fc5c586d.html
Researchers at the South Dakota School of Mines already know most of the mercury in the state’s lakes has precipitated from emissions released from coal fired power plants in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
And, if South Dakota had a Democratic attorney general she’d sue those states for the toxic legacy created by Colstrip, Basin Electric and Black Hills Energy. One of the most polluted reaches of the Belle Fourche River goes right through current Republican Attorney General Marty Jackley’s boyhood ranch.
In 2020 Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute for lying to residents of that state about emissions levels. NorthWestern Energy owns 23.4% of the Big Stone Power Plant in northeastern South Dakota — a monster that consumes 3,500 tons of filthy sub-bituminous coal every hour then spews heavy metal oxides and carbon dioxide over Minnesota.
Because of mercury emissions from burning Wyoming coal Black Hills Corp. decommissioned its Rapid City plant in 2012 then converted it to natural gas and PPL Montana shuttered the JE Corette Plant in Billings in 2015. Black Hills Energy still operates five coal-burning brutes in Wyoming’s Powder River basin just a few miles upwind of Spearditch, South Dakota.
Solar modules are extremely durable and don’t blanket entire states with mercury and other heavy metal oxides like coal fired plants do.
One solar module equals about one lump of coal, per day.
Also written as
I see you’re making your xmas list Mr. grudznick or is it Scrooge??
What an irony. In 2012, basin electric proposed a huge coal fired power plant just a few miles sw of Selby. Everyone gung-ho in favor. But wait, that was traditional fossil fuel based, solar is “green”. The residents’ orange dyed hero is “agin” it. A years long serving commissioner took the trouble to plant a metal flag pole on his property, visible from the highway, flying a trump flag. Like someone said, you can’t fix stupidity, but it’s sure easy to spot!
All the fear of solar is unwarranted. Dinosaurs live in Walworth County. Let the county go bankrupt and then see the fear.
Greetings Larry, No disrespect taken. Sorry for the typo, “Sandia National Labs.” Didn’t catch the auto correct. Never been called a conspiracy dude before but if that is how you want to categorize risk assessment/analysis, you have that right. I think we all want the same thing, a cleaner environment–nothing wrong with that, right? Regardless of the method we attempt to achieve that outcome, safety should be paramount.
What keeps me awake at night is how a one-mile wide, three-mile long, 3200-plus acre solar farm is going to affect our neighborhood, environment, safety… Shouldn’t the risks be fleshed out before haphazardly placing a solar site of this magnitude next to a community, on top of a natural watershed directly leading to the WEB water intake? Don’t get me wrong, solar has its benefits but, do those benefits have to come at the expense of the health and safety of people? Maybe to some that’s an acceptable risk/trade to obtain zero-carbon emissions–not to me.
If solar is to work, it has to be properly sized and placed where it is most efficient, manageable, and risks are mitigated. Our county does not have the resources for fire protection, the last time a HAZMAT team was needed in the county, it took 6 hours to respond from Aberdeen. The Fire Chief (volunteer firefighters) already told the community they do not have the resources to combat a toxic fire, and at best, could only attempt to contain “upwind” and would not expose their firefighters to evacuate/save lives during a toxic event. In this case, siting a solar facility as far away as possible from a community would minimize risks. A particular solar company used a reference in their marketing brochure to dismiss cause for a particular safety concern, not realizing the same source they used recommended a 1-2 kilometer safety distance from a 500 kw site in the event of a fire, and for people to shelter in place or evacuate; what would a 355 Mw, 3200 acre site require? Among the many Questions that should be answered. We should learn from previous mistakes, lead based paint, cigarettes and 2nd hand smoke cause cancer, Flint Michigan water contamination, 3M’s contamination lawsuit, asbestos, Johnson & Johnson talc lawsuit, DuPont GenX compounds etc.to name a few…maybe it was a conspiracy dude who brought these tragedies to light–if so, my hat’s off to them.
We shouldn’t replace one bad situation with another. “A ” solar panel isn’t the problem, a concentrated area of solar panels is where the problems escalate. Panels containing cadmium and other toxic metals pose a risk to people and the environment. China’s own studies, where the majority of cadmium is mined and used in solar panels, shows that small amounts of cadmium exposure through inhalation and/or ingestion cause kidney and liver cancer in humans and animals. It would be prudent for those who live closest to pay attention to their water supply, not to mention their food sources, and where these panels will be disposed. While I said before, there are pros and cons to solar and every other energy source for that matter, every effort should be made to find what’s best, keeping in mind safety from all aspects should be paramount–not dismissed. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
Bud, it’s clear that you didn’t see the pictures or the recent article of the solar farm you described near Scotsbluff, Nebraska. Scottsbluff is not a liberal area of the country as noted
“The politics in Scottsbluff, Nebraska are characterized by a strong sense of community. It is home to many passionate and engaged citizens who are actively involved in local decision making. There are several local political candidates vying for office each election cycle, each offering distinct perspectives and solutions to the issues facing the city. As a small, rural town, Scottsbluff has seen an increase in both its population and development over the past few years. The city government takes great pride in its commitment to providing superior services to its residents while maintaining fiscal responsibility. They work hard to create an environment where all citizens feel safe, welcome, and valued.
The Political Climate in Scottsbluff, NE is Moderately conservative.
Scotts Bluff County, NE is Very conservative. In Scotts Bluff County, NE 27.0% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 70.5% voted for the Republican Party, and the remaining 2.4% voted Independent.
In the last Presidential election, Scotts Bluff county remained overwhelmingly Republican, 70.5% to 27.0%.
Scotts Bluff county voted Republican in every Presidential election since 2000”
Read the article from the paper and stop blowing smoke. I know where you got your “farmers picking up glass” fox. The lying liars of cable news. I get it that you prefer polution, that is your right to want that. The glass broke just like it was supposed to do on impact just like a Velux Sky window or any other kind of safety glass. Take off the foil cap and read from Sandia https://www.sandia.gov/labnews/2021/07/29/sandia-led-center-to-advance-understanding-of-new-solar-panel-technology/
BTW, if Walworth, Yankton or any other county wish to make rules, that is their business as noted above by Mr. Arndt and others. That solar farm in Scottsbluff has sold shares to the good republican voting public there. When they sell juice, the investors get money juice that is called capitalism. Sorta like Democracy, but something you can take to the bank without fighting maga’s for.
Here is a deal for Walworth County. Allow a solar farm under the condition that they finance a HAZMAT team for the county. Stop the follishness and find solutions to community problems.
“Solar panels are straightforward products to manufacture, with a wide set of scientific and manufacturing variations already in use. If concerns over lead and CdTe become larger, the industry can readily replace these materials with more earth-friendly alternatives or even remove some of them altogether.?
Check out our other articles on the myths and truths about solar:
Will waste from retiring solar panels overrun our future landfills?
Does the intermittency of solar and wind make electricity more expensive?
The earth gets more solar energy in one hour than the entire world uses in a year
There are more US jobs in solar than all fossil fuels put together
“Recent facts about photovoltaics in Germany,” Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, section 20.1[↩]
Myths – Solar (smy), Freeing Energy, tab smy.5[↩]
“Different technologies for cell interconnection”, International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaics 2018 results (ITRPV), page 15[↩]
“Lead free metallization paste”, International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaics 2018 results (ITRPV), page 13[↩]
You can find all of this at this link https://www.freeingenergy.com/are-solar-panels-really-full-of-toxic-materials-like-cadmium-and-lead/
No worries, Bud. South Dakota is a failed state by design. Carry on.
Sandia National Lab is developing geothermal energy underneath Lead so maybe Walworth County can have some of that power someday.
Gents, it’s a shame one can’t have an intellectual conversation and share points of view without making it political–guess Cory said it best, group think. Sorry you got it wrong, have fun wallowing in your political driven decisions–don’t forget, common sense is free and generally doesn’t require a political affiliation. If I can boost your ego(s) before I go, Solar is the magic pill to all your worries–rainbows and unicorns. Sorry I barged into your conversation, apparently three’s a crowd…
Bud–appreciate your input. I’ve never really read a complete critique of the “dangers of solar panels”. I’ve always assumed solar farms are relatively benign sources of electric power.
Funny how we encourage 3rd world countries to use solar and wind power to leave all the oil for the real hogs.