analyzing real-world impacts by labeling them as minor or harmless. Calling something an auxiliary route, secondary route, minimal impact, or no known habitat does not relieve the Planning Commission of its legal duty to analyze what will actually happen because of the project. The law looks at function and effect, not labels.

The findings fail to meaningfully address the impacts of air, noise, and light pollution, relying instead, again, on generalized future compliance. Regarding air impact, the findings contain no analysis. They did not identify anticipated emission sources. They do not evaluate cumulative air impacts from operating the data center in tandem with adjacent power generation, and do not explain why air impacts will not affect public health or welfare. Instead, the findings rely on future reporting obligations under state law, which is not a substitute for land use compatibility findings at the time of approval. Regarding noise, the project narrative states only that the applicant plans to comply with the county nuisance ordinance. The findings do not identify baseline conditions.

They do not analyze continuous operational noise from a 24-hour industrial facility, nor do they impose any enforceable noise conditions. General compliance language is not the same as a documented or reported finding, and it does not satisfy the conditional use standard. Regarding light, the findings again lack analysis. The project includes full perimeter fencing, security infrastructure, and round-the-clock operation. Yet, there are no findings addressing light spill, sky glow, wildlife impact, or rural character, even though these impacts are entirely foreseeable in the proposed location.

The water and energy findings are internally inconsistent and legally insufficient. The findings state that the data center will not be unduly detrimental if the local water withdrawals are not impacted. Yet the commission did not determine whether local water withdrawals will be impacted at all. And there is no confirmed or listed water source in the findings or in the vicinity. So, instead, water supply and reporting were again deferred to future-state processes. Utah law does not allow land use authorities to defer core compatibility determinations to later approvals.

Outside of their jurisdiction, nor did the Commission analyze the combined water demand from the data center operating together with the adjacent natural gas plant and produced water facility. Findings must be based on the record as it exists, not on the assumption that other agencies may resolve these impacts later. The water findings are legally insufficient under Utah Water Law because the record does not establish a lawful water supply for this industry. Under Utah Code Section 7-33-3, any change in the place, purpose, or nature of water use requires approval by the state engineer. Meaning the findings don't identify anywhere in the report or provide documentation at the time of the original public hearing and permitted a conditional use permit, a record of existing state engineer approval, or an approved change application authorizing water diversion or use for this project, and instead relied on future reporting and permitting processes.

Intent or future planning does not authorize water diversion or use. By contrast, other large data centers in Utah, including the federal NSA facilities in Bluffdale, NOVA in West Jordan, and MetaBase folks in Eagle Mountain, were all approved in reliance on identified municipal water providers. Holding existing state engineer-administered water rights rather than on future reporting or unspecified permitting. The findings report identified no specific water right, no approved change application, and no determination that lawful water has been secured for this project. The findings rely solely on future reporting requirements, but reporting statutes do not create a right to use water, and the Commission should understand this.

They are transparency tools. Without evidence in the record showing how water will be lawfully obtained and used, you, as the commission, could not possibly make a grounded or data-driven conclusion that the project will not substantially impact local water resources. And even assuming this use of so-called closed-loop or recycled water systems, those designs do not eliminate impact. They often increase energy demand because more mechanical cooling is required, and they still produce wastewater, including a concentrated brine flowdown that must be managed and disposed of through lawful and expensive means.

These tradeoffs are well known in hyperscale data center operations, yet none are analyzed in the findings report provided by the project app. Water impact determinations require