||| FROM SHANNON MATTILA |||
I just read that Clara Park, OPALCO’s attorney, stated that “Decatur Island residents are for the solar expansion” ..that is completely false. Someone is creating a false narrative to support their own agenda.
Decatur Island residents are definitively opposed to this project.
It has been stated repeatedly, loudly and with conviction.
There has been no end to the amount of research, letters, articles, meetings, comments and thorough exhaustive fact finding in support of the strong opposition from Decatur Island residents.
And I don’t see an end to it. We are pacing ourselves for a marathon, not a sprint. If it comes to people laying down in front of bulldozers, chaining themselves to trees and generally kicking up a very loud and public fuss… that’ll probably happen, if this project is approved.
The one good thing is that (other than a few outliers) this has united the island like nothing else ever has. People are bonded and committed to the cause. If trucks start rolling onto the island to tear down that forrest …protests will begin, it’ll be ‘all hands on deck’ with protesters and everyone supporting the protesters…we love a good pot luck, we’ve nothing else to do, and we have a lot of good cooks around here…
we’re not likely to throw in the towel anytime soon, if ever.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Here is the direct quote from Clara Park from the April 16 OPALCO Board meeting: “…while there was certainly opposition from some Decatur residents, the majority of the public comments that was submitted for the public hearing was in support of the project.
I’ll also note that throughout the hearing, the county was in support of the project. So, before the hearing, the county issued a staff report recommending that the hearing examiner approve the CUP, and the county issued what’s called a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance, or DNS. And the DNS is a determination that, essentially, a project will not result in probable significant impacts, and that all potential impacts can be avoided.”
Clara is referencing the 116 letters of support (versus 38 that were opposed) that were submitted during the public comment period on this project. Members can find the Board Materials and the video recording of the meeting on our website or visit the County website to find the letters of support.
SAN JUAN COUNTY NEIGHBORS! I known it may seem like a Decatur issue… I sympathize if you are tired of us ringing the bell (we are tired of of it too) but I KNOW that 87% of you (by OPALCOs own survey)would not choose to rip out a forest as a first option, most of you see it as a last option.OPALCO is selling us on green energy and the viability of solar YET has chosen to cut down trees, a habitat to a rare bat to do it??? Does this make sense?
I know this seems CRAZY,like a plot to a bad 80s movie where a small town goes up against the bad company bent on destroying something important to them and people band together. But this is a co-op that we have trusted and supported and been members of for decades. This is not some unknown entity rolling into our area to make a buck.
Shannon (the author)and I have known each other since we were little girls. She is right. This is not a situation where we will back down. This is simply unjust. No amount of lawyers and PR, half truths & spin or actual lies, is going to change that. This is OPALCO’s big role out… these are the decisions they will make on your Island and we are being LOUD about every aspect of this so that you, as a member, who’s bills continue to rise, will question how these decisions are being made. Email them, vote in the upcoming board elections, talk with your neighbors. Those of us who support solar still have a right question decisions that are driving us towards bills we can’t afford.
NIMBYism is ugly but understandable. I have worked on Decatur and driven all over it and I have a very hard time believing very many people there or anywhere are concerned about a few acres of second growth fir up in the middle of the island that no one even sees. The real issue is clearly something different. But what? I wish the Decature NIMBYists would honestly address whatever they are really upset about.
Ken Wood, as you have been to Decatur , I am sure you saw our ALREADY existing solar grid? Is it similar to the one on your island? You don’t have one on your island but would like us to get a second installation (and probably the third) on our forested land? You seem concerned about us being NIMBYs while we have an instillation (that the community was supportive of). We are a non ferry serviced island with one county ramp and no fire district. Buildout here will be expensive. It is past time for OPALCO to consider a more appropriate location. Perhaps in another island’s backyard as we have given our equitable share.
As for addressing what we are “really upset about” I wonder how close you are following this. Alan Mizuta’s letter posted here a few days ago outlines all of our concerns but also things that should concern every OPALCO member.
Samuel Clemens popularized the phrase, there are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. As to Krista Bouchey, (OPALCO), stating there were 116 letters in support of the Decatur project. Having seen each of the letters myself, what she failed to mention is that OPALCO itself wrote most, if not all of the letters, with the signers merely putting their names to an e-mail letter OPALCO sent to every member, myself on Orcas included. If 116 said yes, as asked to do by simply clicking their mouse and or a cut and paste application, then the remaining 11,600 or so OPALCO members said NO. This is an ill-conceived proposal, in the totally wrong location, and OPALCO should suck-up to reality and admit it.
Thank you R. Bruce King. We all know that Opalco sent a form letter to its members with words to cut and paste into their own email to send back saying they are in support of the project. Those are the 116 letters prompted by Opalco’s email. Totally lame way of getting positive comments and support, but politicians do the same thing. There hasn’t been one person attending any of the hearings that spoke in favor of the project. The speakers at all the hearings have been opposed to the project.
Hi Krista, we finally agree on something, well almost. The DCD staff report, or more precisely the outsourced staff report by http://www.deainc.com, tells a story that you do not.
The report confirms the core problem. On page 63, the County required “no encroachment into designated sensitive areas” unless the 30% open space is formally revised, and further required that development “must avoid the Native Growth Area” unless that covenant is modified or rescinded. That is not a finding that the current layout works. It is an admission that approval could only be recommended if the project stays out of the restricted areas, or if those restrictions are first undone. https://tinyurl.com/4y9uaupx
Those restrictions were on the deed when OPALCO bought the property. They did not magically appear later. OPALCO failed at the basic level of due diligence, then spent roughly $1.1 million in taxpayer and ratepayer money designing a project incompatible with the site from the start. We know that because OPALCO is now sending “intent to revise” letters and lobbying officials to modify or rescind the very restrictions that should have been understood before this site was ever advanced:
https://tinyurl.com/3vmb2nms
The grant document showing the original $1 million from 2021 being cut to $430,000 for design and engineering, matched with $660,000 of OPALCO funds, is here: https://tinyurl.com/yjafnk22
Now let’s talk about sequence. The January 16, 2025 OPALCO Board minutes say, on page 1, that OPALCO faced “challenges with land-use regulations, outdated zoning, and opposition to energy development in agricultural areas,” that those issues were delaying Bailer Hill, and that OPALCO was therefore proposing Decatur as an alternative site while surveying members. That matters because the pivot came first and the survey followed. https://tinyurl.com/yc4xntdw
Then came the December 2025 OPALCO Member Survey. On pages 31 and 32 of the PDF, the least supported siting category was “Forested,” at 13%. Yet management had picked a forested parcel carrying two recorded conservation restrictions and nine wetland areas over more than 1.5 acres. They chose the site, then surveyed the membership, then learned forested land was the least favored category. That goes directly to credibility. https://tinyurl.com/3c2wa5td
Even Friends of the San Juans said the renewable future “must be done right,” favoring built environments, impervious surfaces, and already cleared lands, while warning that clearing 6+ acres of healthy forest for solar is counter-productive. This is not just Decatur residents objecting to change. It is a serious land use and environmental critique.
You cite Clara, from your Washington, D.C. law firm, http://www.vnf.com, as if the record is settled by her characterization of it. But Clara is reportedly citing 154 comments. The San Juan County permitting portal shows more than 550 public comments concerning the CUP and SEPA. That is not a small discrepancy. It goes to whether the full public record is being acknowledged or narrowed: https://tinyurl.com/2hwe69zy
Most telling of all, at the last OPALCO board meeting devoted to this project, no one showed up to speak in support of it.
That matters because OPALCO itself solicited support with ratepayer funds. On 2/6/26, did OPALCO not send an email with the subject line “Action Alert: Support Local Community Solar” asking members to send letters of support? It appears on page 14 of the FAQ packet here: https://tinyurl.com/4ky9zz7k
Decatur has fewer than 150 registered voters. OPALCO has roughly 12,000 members countywide. Of course a countywide action alert can drown out a tiny island if management frames it that way.
That is the pattern. The site was advanced first. The restrictions were missed. The project was designed anyway. The public was surveyed later. The least popular siting category turned out to be the one selected. Then the County staff report said the project could not proceed as laid out unless protected areas were avoided or the restrictions were first changed. After all that, we are told this reflects “due diligence.”
It does not.
It reflects a management team that chose the site first, discovered the problem later, and is now trying to rearrange the facts, the restrictions, and the public narrative to fit a decision that should have been questioned at the beginning.
Krista, address any of the excellent questions raised over the weekend, and any you may have missed in this opinion piece:
https://theorcasonian.com/guest-opinion-board-responsibility-and-credibility-in-the-decatur-matter/
None of that is answered by pointing people back to board packets.
The actual questions are simple. Why was a recorded restriction missed? Why was a forested site advanced after OPALCO’s own survey showed forested land had the lowest support? And why should members accept “due diligence” as the label for a process that OPALCO itself now admits missed the covenant at the center of the controversy?
For purposes of this particular discussion, it really doesn’t matter what site OPALCO seeks to develop for renewable energy support of our local grid; it will still be opposed..This is exactly why the county is designating clean energy sources as essential public facilities under RCW 36.70A.200. The Legislature was fully aware that there are facilities that for whatever reason are unwelcome. but nonetheless necessary.
What OPALCO proposes is only the first step. More must come. The aging of cables and cost of replacement, negotiation of the next BPA contract (coming up) , and events on the mainland are all reasons for us to seek resilience and meet the many needs and preferences we brought with us.
Hey Bill, I wanted to clarify a few points and correct some inaccuracies.
Alternative sites were identified early on. For example, the Bonneville Power easement that crosses my property is already cleared and will remain so permanently. I would not oppose installation of solar panels on that extensive easement. There’s also a retired airfield that’s already open, as well as a former gravel pit across from the power station. These options were available but not meaningfully pursued.
The application submitted by OPALCO also contains statements that aren’t accurate. It claims I was sent a certified letter and failed to respond to emails. I never received any certified letter, and I did respond to their emails. It even references an email sent to George Lamb, who has never had an email address. Unfortunately, this is just one example of a broader pattern of misrepresentation and lack of transparency.
Decatur Island has already done its fair share. We host one of only two solar installations on this side of the Cascade Mountains. At the time, we were told that site would be properly landscaped and maintained. Neither of those commitments has been fulfilled.
Beyond that, the current proposal simply doesn’t make sense. The plans show solar panels being installed right up against 70-foot trees on all sides, which raises serious doubts about how effective this system would be. It appears less about producing meaningful energy and more about salvaging a grant.
There are also unresolved impacts from the first installation. No stormwater mitigation was put in place after the initial clear-cut, and downhill neighbors have experienced flooding as a result. OPALCO has not addressed these issues. Ignoring subsurface water flow in this new proposal only increases the risk and potential liability for the co-op. There’s an airfield just a few lots downhill that has already been affected, and tripling the size of the array will worsen those impacts.
If the pilot delivering our packages takes a nose dive on that soggy field Opalco will be named in the lawsuit. They have been warned multiple times… It is even the subject of one of the two SEPA appeals that have been filed.
When the first project was built, we were told we were a pilot program and that future installations would be located on other islands. That hasn’t happened either.
It’s easy to dismiss concerns like this as “NIMBYism,” but that’s not an accurate characterization. If you take a close look at the plans, or speak with someone outside of OPALCO, I think you’d also question whether this is a responsible use of co-op resources.