legal duty to analyze- to analyze what will actually happen because of the project. The law looks at function and effect, not labels. Fourth, the findings fail to meaningfully address air, noise, and light pollution impact, relying instead on, again, generalized future compliance. With respect to air impact, the findings contain no analysis at all.

They did not identify anticipated emission sources. They do not evaluate, 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, do not identify baseline conditions.

They do not analyze continuous operational noise from a 24-hour industrial facility, and they do not 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. With respect to light, the findings again contain no 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. 6Th, the water and energy findings are internally inconsistent and legally insufficient.

The findings state that the data center will not be unduly detrimental, quote, if the local water withdrawals are not impacted. Yet the commission made no determination whether local water withdrawals will be impacted at all. And there is no confirmed or listed water source in the findings or towards it. 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 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 7333, 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 the documentation at the time of the original public hearing and permitted conditional use permit a record of existing state engineer approval or approved change application