needs to be owned and operated by a legal U.S. company and cannot store or sell data to any foreign nation.

My recommendations to the County Commissioners are that you need to have from the entities that want to build this center memorandums of understanding or letters of intent from Johnson Water, from ReWater, from their disposal pits, the company providing the natural gas, and Moon Lake Electric, of what they may or may not want from Moon Lake Electric, and that these conditions should be met, reviewed, and made public before this permit goes on.

The entities need to present their proposal to the public. So that we know what they are doing. We don't have any idea. It's really hard to judge what we need because we don't know what they want from us.

If the county officials know what these people want, you need to make it transparent to the public so that we know what we are looking at. The county needs to be competitive on this project, not just catch up. We need to know what we are getting ourselves into. You need to make it transparent. Now I need to make one more comment. I've been very professional up to this point, but I received an email from Melissa. It said that only the applicants would be able to get up and speak. This is supposed to be a public meeting. I read that, and I still feel the same: this should be a public meeting, and you need to listen to your constituents.

Commissioner Chugg said that he appreciates the process we have here. It's already been through its process, with a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. There were also a large number of people in attendance, which is great. We should have more people involved in our government, and I applaud you all for being here. I know there were some questions about the timing of all this, but since we had noticed it at this time, we couldn't change it. The other meeting was in the evening, so there was an opportunity to make that comment at other times. But like I said, what we're here to determine initially is whether Mrs. Henderson has standing. She, by her own words, admitted that she's not sure that she does.

Commissioner Chugg made a motion to deny the appeal. Commissioner Killian seconded the motion. Commissioner Chugg voted aye, Commissioner Killian voted aye, and Commissioner Miles voted aye. The motion passed.

Speaking on behalf of Diana Meacham Davis is Andrea Glade (Annie). She said: My name is Annie, and I am speaking on behalf of Diana, who was our appellant, and I am a part of a group of appellants to join the HIA appeal concerning April 2nd, 2026 approvals for the Nine Mile Data Center and its related facilities, including one for the Wells Draw Natural Gas Plant, the solar facility, and the ReWater produced water operation. My statement is not about whether economic development is desirable or a doable business project. Rather, these approvals comply with Duchesne County's General Plan, the A-5 Agricultural Zoning Framework, and Utah's Land Use Development and Management Act. Under Utah law, an administrative land use decision is presumed valid only if it is supported by substantial evidence, contains adequate written and documented findings, and is consistent with applicable land use applications and the General Plan. If any of those elements are missing, the decision is illegal and must be reversed automatically.

The Utah Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that findings must be detailed enough to permit meaningful review. In McKelvey v. City of Moab and Northern Monticello Alliance v. San Juan County, the courts upheld that a failure to make required findings is not a harmless error. It is a fatal defect. In the case of Nine Mile LLC data center applications and conditional use permits, or CUP, which I'll be referring to as such for the rest of this hearing, the Duchesne County Planning Commission approvals suffer from several interrelated legal deficiencies. First, the findings report fails to apply the general plan's rural character, resource protection, land use compatibility, and land use compatibility policies.

The approval also failed to comply with the procedural and evidentiary requirements of the Duchesne County zoning ordinance governing conditional uses under County Code Section 8-13-4, which, if you guys would like, I can offer you kind of this chart that I made,