Elbert County sets water-use hearing for Shepherd Solar permits
Commissioners will hear more about the proposed project’s water needs Oct. 14 as they continue reviewing permits for a 199-megawatt solar facility and battery system near Matheson.

Published at
Elbert County commissioners are scheduled to reopen the Shepherd Solar permit hearing Oct. 14 for discussion of the project’s water use and potential impacts. The hearing is limited to water, and the applicant is expected to provide additional information, [a county hearing memo says](https://elbertcoco.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetAttachmentFile(fileId=10080). The county agenda lists the hearing for 1 p.m. and identifies the project’s Major 1041 and Special Use by Review applications.
The hearing continues consideration of Shepherd Solar LLC’s proposed 199-megawatt solar facility and 100-megawatt battery energy storage system. Commissioners voted 2-1 on Sept. 9 to deny both applications. At their Sept. 23 meeting, motions to approve written denial resolutions died for lack of a second; commissioners then voted 2-1 to reopen the applications for a hearing limited to water. The Oct. 14 hearing is a further step in the review, not an approval.
The company’s application says it does not plan to drill new wells or use existing onsite wells, and expects to truck water from offsite suppliers. It initially estimated 300 to 400 acre-feet for construction and no more than 10 acre-feet annually during operations, according to its application materials.
In a later response to county reviewers, the applicant gave higher estimates: 365 to 730 acre-feet during construction and 22.6 acre-feet annually during operations. The company said it anticipates using Simla Water and would seek other permitted municipal or commercial bulk suppliers if Simla could not meet all or part of the demand. It said the estimates may be refined as the project advances, with final figures due at least three months before construction begins, in its response to the second review.
The county’s second-review checklist marked the water documentation as meeting review requirements; that finding did not establish a supplier commitment for the projected volumes.