The Great Bend City Council sent an ordinance on solar regulations within the 3-mile zone back to the Planning Commission when it met Monday. City Administrator Logan Burns had already recommended that action so the commission could consider recommended changes. After Great Bend resident Leslie Barrett shared community concerns about setbacks, the council added those to the list of possible changes.
Approximately 15 people from the community attended the meeting to hear about the solar issue. Only Barrett was invited to speak because public comment time is typically limited to 3 minutes for items not on the agenda. When a large group is present for the same topic, the mayor may ask that a spokesperson be chosen and given more time to speak.
Background
On Sept. 30, the Great Bend Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed solar regulations within the 3-mile zoning jurisdiction. It recommended the regulations that were presented Monday. The city council held a work session on Oct. 7 to go over the proposed regulations and recommended a few changes.
On Monday, the council had three options:
• Approve the planning commission’s recommendation and pass the ordinance with no changes.
• Override and reject the planning commission’s recommendation (which would require a 2/3 majority of the membership – 6 votes).
• Neither approve nor disapprove of the ordinance but send it back to the planning commission for reconsideration, listing specific items. That was the action taken on Monday.
Concerns
Barrett said the solar regulations will have consequences for years to come.
“This huge decision is coming down to you on the city council to decide the fate of a lot of people,” she said.
She began her research after talk of a proposed “solar industrial complex” in Barton County raised concerns. Barrett prefers this term rather than “solar farm.”
“As I learned more, I am shocked at how toxic the solar panels actually are, the contamination threat they pose for all of us.”
They cannot be recycled in the United States and are likely being buried. One of the chemicals in these panels, silicon tetrachloride, reacts with water to produce hydrochloric acid, which can contaminate groundwater.
She said Texas A&M conducted a study on rainwater harvested from solar panels and found it unfit for human consumption due to high levels of lead and cadmium. She noted that the study was on newer panels and old, weathered panels would leach more contaminants.
Barrett went on the discuss fire hazards associated with solar industrial complexes, noting that temperatures above and below the panels can be significantly higher than ambient temperatures, affecting soil moisture and groundwater.
“What would it do to our Cheyenne Bottoms?”
The batteries for the complexes contain lithium ion, which creates an explosive reaction if it comes in contact with water, she continued.
“I’m told that the batteries are stored in 40-foot steel boxes, and if one of these contains a fire, they are supposed to dig a hole and bury the 40-foot box and leave it.”
Barrett is in contact with Jennifer McLean, a former Great Bend resident living three-quarters of a mile from a 400-acre solar complex in Texas. A project proposed in Barton County six times that size, she said.
“They’ve had shattered glass shards blown into their yard after hail and wind, and the temperatures at her home are routinely six to 10 degrees warmer than, say, two to three miles away. ... The solar complex near Jennifer had eight fires in 2023 alone.”
There are also environmental concerns as well as unknowns, she said. “The science of determining the impact is in a developmental stage.”
Barrett said the solar regulations recently adopted by Barton County include a 1,000 foot setback from residential property, which she thinks is not enough. The city’s recommendation calls for an even smaller setback. Her friend’s home is 3,960 feet from the solar field. “The 1,000-foot setback is less than a third of that, not nearly enough. ... But it’s far safer than the 50 foot, 100 foot, 200 foot, 400 foot from a foundation regulations that the planning and zoning committee has come up with for you guys to vote on,” she said.
“I am asking the city council temporarily adopt the county regulations. They are far safer,” Barrett said. However, both entities should do more research, she added.
“There are no second chances. Kansas is truly under attack from several corporations. We should start working together with other counties to save our central Kansas.”
Mayor Cody Schmidt thanked those who have concerns for attending the meeting and he reminded them that public hearings and work sessions are the time to speak out.
“We had a session two weeks ago and the mic was completely crickets,” he said.
Schmidt also praised Barrett for bringing research along with her concerns.
Councilman Kevyn Soupiset said the setbacks should be added to the list of items the planning commission should reconsider. The motion to send the issue back also identified other matters to reconsider:
• Change language for general liability insurance to be per occurrence in the amount of not less than $2 million or as determined by the size of the project and approved by the Great Bend Planning Commission/City Council.
• Change the language concerning the groundwater test to read: “a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment or equivalent be conducted.”
What’s next?
With this returning to the planning commission, there will be another recommendation with another public hearing on Nov. 25 during the regular city council meeting.
It was also noted that these are zoning regulations for the future, not tied to any specific project.
“The process has nothing to do with a specific company or build,” Schmidt said. “Any company will have to apply for a conditional use permit.” That would also come before the council.
