Wind and Solar Land Leasing in Clark County, South Dakota

Clark County's zoning ordinance has a dedicated wind-energy chapter

The hub covers Clark County's general zoning ordinance (Ordinance 1-14, amending Ordinance 03-03), but the ordinance also contains a specific chapter -- 4.21, Wind Energy Systems (WES) -- addressing applicability and federal/state requirements for wind development, and separately addressing Private Wind Energy Conversion Systems (PWECS), the smaller, typically single-turbine systems a landowner might install for their own use rather than a utility-scale project like Crocker. That distinction matters for a landowner: a homestead-scale wind turbine intended to offset a single property's electricity use is regulated under a different part of the ordinance than a commercial project feeding the grid, with correspondingly different permitting expectations. Confirm which category applies to a specific proposed installation directly with Clark County Planning & Zoning before assuming either the utility-scale or the private-system rules govern.

The Crocker Wind Farm permit: 40 conditions, and a county-driven push for larger setbacks

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission's 2018 order in Docket EL17-028 granted Crocker Wind Farm, LLC a construction permit for up to 120 turbines and roughly 5.2 miles of 345 kV transmission line, subject to 40 separate conditions covering areas including road protection, decommissioning, and aircraft detection lighting. One condition, offered by a PUC commissioner, requires the project to provide a public liaison officer specifically to facilitate communication among landowners, area residents, and PUC staff, and to help resolve complaints -- a concrete, ongoing point of contact for anyone living near the project rather than a one-time permitting formality.

On setbacks specifically, the record here is genuinely local: early project mapping showed residences within roughly 3,960 feet (three-quarters of a mile) of a proposed turbine location, but the Clark County Commission -- drawing on its own experience with an earlier, smaller wind project in the area -- pushed for more distance between turbines and the homes of non-participating landowners (those without a lease or easement on the project) than that original setback would have provided. This is worth knowing for two reasons: first, it shows the county government itself treats non-participant setbacks as a real, negotiated issue rather than a fixed formula; second, it means the setback distance that actually applied to Crocker may be larger than an early project map would suggest, so a current, project-specific confirmation matters more than a generic setback rule of thumb.

What this means for a parcel near the project today

Crocker's Phase I (200 MW, 77 turbines) has been operating since November 2019; a similarly sized Phase II is permitted but, per the most recently available reporting, had not yet begun construction. If a parcel sits within or near the roughly 29,000-acre project footprint, the practical questions are: is the parcel under an executed lease or easement (a participating landowner), or near turbines on a neighboring parcel (a non-participant, where the county-negotiated setback distance applies); and if Phase II proceeds, would its layout bring the project closer to a specific parcel than Phase I's footprint does today. Both require a current answer from the project's operator or Clark County Planning & Zoning, not the 2017-2018 permitting record alone.

What to verify before treating a wind lease or a nearby parcel as settled

1. Confirm whether a proposed installation is a utility-scale Wind Energy System or a Private Wind Energy Conversion System under Clark County's ordinance Chapter 4.21 -- the permitting path differs.
2. For any parcel near the Crocker project footprint, confirm current turbine locations and the setback distance actually applied to non-participating landowners, since the county pushed this beyond the originally mapped distance.
3. Ask the project's current operator (ownership can change after the original PUC filing) about the public-liaison-officer contact required under the PUC permit if you have an active concern about noise, access, or construction impacts.
4. If Phase II proceeds, confirm its updated layout and any new setback or easement implications for a specific parcel directly, rather than relying on Phase I's footprint.
5. If considering a lease yourself, have any wind-lease or easement agreement reviewed by an attorney experienced in wind-energy contracts before signing, given the multi-decade terms typical of these agreements.