83 Jerome County residents were asked how they want the county to handle proposed changes to Chapters 7 & 11 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The results are overwhelming — and they deserve to be heard.
Jerome County Commissioners and the Planning & Zoning Commission are considering amendments to Chapters 11 and 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with updates to the Comprehensive Plan. These changes would reshape how — and where — large-scale energy development can occur in rural Jerome County.
The energy projects under consideration include wind turbines, solar installations, and lithium battery energy storage systems (BESS). The initial draft of Chapter 11 limited large-scale facilities (over 10 MWh or disturbing more than 60 acres) to Heavy Industrial zones. The Planning & Zoning Commission has since recommended removing that Heavy Industrial restriction and allowing large-scale projects anywhere via a Conditional Use Permit.
The JTown Beacon surveyed residents to capture how the community actually feels about these proposals before final decisions are made. The results are clear — and the numbers below come directly from the published survey.
Jerry's position: Survey data from the people who live here should weigh heavily in commission deliberations. When 74 of 83 respondents rate farmland preservation "Extremely Important" and 75 of 83 oppose large-scale energy in agricultural zones, that is not a fringe view — that is Jerome County speaking.
Each question below shows the exact response distribution from the 83 survey respondents. Percentages are based on total responses for that question.
Considering agricultural land in Jerome County is a limited resource like water, how important is it to you that Jerome County prioritize the preservation of agricultural land when considering large- or small-scale energy projects?
Chapter 11 currently allows large-scale energy facilities in Heavy Industrial (IH) zones and does not permit them in Agricultural or Residential zones. Do you support maintaining this zoning approach?
Would you support allowing large-scale energy facilities in Agricultural zones under certain conditions?
Do you support allowing small-scale or on-site renewable energy systems (such as solar installations serving individual homes, farms, or businesses) for on-site use, in Agricultural zones?
Considering BESS is being planned in Southern Idaho, how concerned are you about safety or environmental risks associated with lithium or other potentially hazardous battery energy storage facilities?
For wind, solar, and other energy facilities, how important are specific guidelines regarding noise, glare, traffic, stormwater, and emergency response studies? In your opinion, are these requirements…
Current Jerome County Planning & Zoning only requires notification of property owners within one mile of a proposed large-scale energy facility or AI Data Center. Do you believe that all Jerome County residents should be notified?
Do you believe that having operators provide financial assurance to ensure facility removal and land restoration after closure is important?
Which statement best reflects your view?
Do you believe the approach to allow large- and small-scale energy development anywhere in rural Jerome County strikes the right balance between energy development and farmland preservation?
The numbers tell a consistent story across ten different questions: residents want aggressive protection of agricultural land, real public notice, BESS safety standards, and binding decommissioning requirements — and they do not believe the current proposal gets the balance right.
89% call farmland preservation "Extremely Important." 90% oppose large-scale energy in Agricultural zones. That is not a narrow view — it is a supermajority across Jerome County respondents.
83% are "Very Concerned" about lithium battery storage safety and environmental risk. A Conditional Use Permit is not a substitute for strict siting, fire-safety, and emergency-response standards.
90% say every Jerome County resident should be notified about large-scale energy or AI Data Center proposals — not just property owners within one mile of the fence line.
93% say financial assurance for facility removal and land restoration is "Extremely Important." A project that walks away from a 40-acre industrial site with no bond leaves the landowner — or the county — holding the bill.
80% say proposed noise, glare, traffic, stormwater, and emergency-response standards are "not strict enough." That is a direct signal to tighten the ordinance before adoption, not after.
82% say the current approach "needs significant revision." Only 3 of 83 respondents called the current proposal "well balanced." When a commission recommends language the community overwhelmingly rejects, it is time to pause and listen.
Read the full survey for yourself — and track the ordinances driving it.
"The people of Jerome County have been clear. A commission that ignores that clarity is not representing them — it is overriding them."— Jerry Holton