AI agents on four site-diligence questions, with and without Atria

EPA-regulated: Yes. EPA's Facility Registry Service lists the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery, EPA Registry Id 110000502901, 2800 Decker Drive, Baytown, TX 77520-2099. The site appears in several federal programs:

• Water discharge permit (NPDES): It has a "major" permit for the Exxon Mobil Baytown Refinery Complex, TX0006271.
• Air: It's on EPA's emissions inventory as Baytown Refinery 4924411, hazardous air pollutant major. It also has several air permits from the Texas environmental agency (TCEQ).
• Hazardous waste: It's registered as a hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility, Exxon Mobil Baytown Refinery TXD000782698, TSD (Y).
• Toxics Release Inventory: It reports as ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Baytown Refinery (Part), 2800 Decker Dr.
• Superfund: It has a Superfund record but is not on the NPL (the national priority cleanup list). EPA decided the site does not qualify for the NPL.
• Enforcement: EPA's records show formal enforcement actions from 2005–2006.

Owner: Exxon Mobil Corporation. Wikipedia lists the Owner: ExxonMobil and says the site was originally operated by the Humble Oil Company. In the Texas state registry, the regulated company is Exxon Mobil Corp. I did not check county property records, so I can't confirm which ExxonMobil company legally holds title to the land.

Some context: the refinery has capacity of 588,000 barrels per day. It is part of the larger Baytown Complex, which covers approximately 3,400 acres along the Houston Ship Channel… comprised of the Baytown Refinery (BTRF), Baytown Chemical Plant (BTCP) and Baytown Olefins Plant (BOP). A NASA source puts the refinery alone at 970 hectares, about 2,400 acres.

100-year floodplain: I can't determine this. I couldn't find any published figure for how many acres or what percentage of the site is in the 100-year floodplain. Working it out would mean overlaying the site boundary on FEMA's flood maps, and I didn't have access to that map data. What I did find:

• E&E News, citing NOAA data, said the refinery is in low-lying areas that are already prone to flooding.
• In 2017 ExxonMobil temporarily shut the refinery after flooding caused by monster storm Harvey had led to "operational issues."
• The 100-year flood zones in Baytown are mostly Zones AE and VE. A FEMA draft would cause a significant expansion of Harris County's 100-year floodplain, so the answer could change once new maps take effect.

To get an exact answer, download the site boundary from the Harris County Appraisal District, overlay it on FEMA's Zone A/AE/VE flood areas from msc.fema.gov in a mapping (GIS) program, and compare the overlapping acreage with the total. Also check whether levees protect any of the site, since FEMA may map levee-protected areas outside the 100-year zone.

The parcel is EPA-regulated, it's owned by "EXXON CORP CORPORATION," and about 6 acres (0.6%) of it is in the 100-year floodplain. One caveat first: the Census geocoder couldn't match "2800 Decker Dr," so I found the parcel by placing a point inside the refinery. The county parcel it landed on has 2800 Decker Dr, Baytown 77520 as its address and is described as "EXXON REFINERY," so it is the right site.

Parcel: Harris County Appraisal District account 0410220000020. It covers 1,019.77 acres (the tax roll says 1,008) in two pieces, with a legal description of "TR 3, ABST 66 W SCOTT." The 2026 appraised value is $1,253,711,172: $17.8M for land and $1.236B for improvements.

1. Owner: The 2026 county roll lists "EXXON CORP CORPORATION" as 100% owner. The mailing address is PO Box 53, Houston TX 77001-0053, and the ownership date on the record is early 1988. "Exxon Corp" is an old name that was never updated; today's company is Exxon Mobil Corporation. I can't tell from this record which ExxonMobil affiliate actually runs the plant.

2. EPA regulation: Yes. EPA's facility registry (FRS ID 110000502901) places "EXXONMOBIL BAYTOWN REFINERY" on this parcel under three active programs:

• Risk Management Program (chemical accident prevention): ID 100000062905, active
• Toxics Release Inventory (annual toxic release reporting): ID 77522XXNBY2800D, active
• RCRA Large Quantity Generator (hazardous waste): EPA ID TXD000782698, active

The Baytown Olefins Plant is also on this parcel. It has two IDs under each of the same three programs (FRS 110000463178). In total, 5 accident-program facilities and 8 toxic-release reporters are within 1 mile.

This covers only those three EPA programs. A second environmental check failed to run, so I haven't confirmed air permits, water discharge permits, or enforcement and compliance history. EPA's ECHO database would cover those.

3. 100-year floodplain: FEMA's current flood maps, measured across the parcel's full outline, show:

• None of the parcel is in a floodway or the coastal high-hazard (VE) zone.
• The 100-year flood elevation on the parcel ranges from 13 to 16 ft.
• The middle of the parcel sits in the 500-year zone. A third of the site is in that moderate-risk zone even though very little is in the 100-year floodplain.

What I couldn't determine:

• Whether this parcel is the whole refinery. I measured one county account. The complex probably spans other accounts, such as tank farms and dock frontage on the Houston Ship Channel and San Jacinto River. The record also points to a separate improvements account (0410220000157). Flood shares for any other parcels could be quite different, especially along the water. If you send me other addresses or points around the complex, I can run the same check on them.
• Whether the flood maps reflect actual risk. These are FEMA's regulatory maps, not a site-specific study. They don't account for levees, the site's own flood protection, or storm surge beyond what FEMA has mapped.

Bottom line

Yes—the refinery is federally environmentally regulated. Its documented owner and operator is Exxon Mobil Corporation. I could not determine a defensible acreage or percentage of the refinery site within the current 100-year floodplain. Historical mapping shows floodplain overlap with portions of the broader Baytown complex, but that is not a measured, current refinery-only determination. (records.tceq.texas.gov)

1. Is this an EPA-regulated site? Yes.

Records specifically match ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery, 2800 Decker Drive, Baytown, Texas 77520:

“EPA-regulated” does not mean EPA issues every permit directly: the refinery’s federal Title V operating permit is administered through TCEQ. EPA also documents federal Clean Air Act enforcement involving the Baytown refinery. (tceq.texas.gov)

Important distinction: The facility also appears in EPA’s CERCLA/Superfund database as “Exxon Co USA Baytown Refinery & Chemical,” but EPA explicitly says “Not on the NPL” and that it does not qualify for the National Priorities List based on existing information. Its database appearance should not be described as an NPL-listed Superfund site. (cumulis.epa.gov)

2. Who owns it? Exxon Mobil Corporation

The 2025 TCEQ technical review expressly states that Exxon Mobil Corporation owns and operates the refinery. ExxonMobil’s March 2024 Baytown Complex fact sheet independently reports 100% ownership by Exxon Mobil Corporation. (records.tceq.texas.gov)

That establishes the documented facility owner/operator; I did not independently verify deed ownership of every underlying land parcel.

3. How much is in the 100-year floodplain? Not determined

Here is what I could establish—and what I could not:

• Historical evidence of partial overlap: An August 24, 2017 Public Citizen analysis reproduced Harris County floodplain mapping showing portions of the Baytown complex in the 100-year floodplain, including a tank-farm area. It did not provide a measured acreage or percentage. This is historical evidence, not a current official determination for the refinery boundary. (citizen.org)
• The denominator matters: ExxonMobil’s published approximately 3,400 acres covers the refinery, chemical plant, and olefins plant together—not the refinery alone. Using that acreage to calculate a refinery-specific percentage would be misleading without matching boundaries. (lowcarbon.exxonmobil.com)
• Current acreage/percentage: I did not obtain a verified refinery-site polygon and a completed overlay against effective FEMA flood-hazard polygons. Consequently, I cannot responsibly state “X acres” or “Y%,” or confirm the current refinery-only extent.

For that calculation, the refinery boundary would need to be intersected with the effective FEMA 1%-annual-chance floodplain, including applicable map revisions. Harris County’s mapping tool distinguishes that floodplain from the 0.2%-annual-chance/500-year floodplain and cautions that its viewer is informational rather than an official determination. (harriscountyfemt.org)

Best-supported conclusion: Regulation and corporate ownership are confirmed. Historical floodplain overlap is documented for the broader complex; the amount within the current refinery site remains unverified.

Yes—the named refinery is EPA-regulated. The county lists the landowner as “EXXON CORP CORPORATION,” and approximately 6.17 acres (0.6%) of the identified refinery parcel lie in FEMA’s 100-year floodplain. The parcel scope matters here.

EPA regulation

EPA’s Facility Registry Service identifies EXXONMOBIL BAYTOWN REFINERY, registry ID 110000502901, with active listings for:

• Risk Management Program (RMP): ID 100000062905
• Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): ID 77522XXNBY2800D

These establish that the refinery itself—not merely a neighboring plant—is EPA-regulated. The broader EPA ECHO search failed, so I could not verify its full permit inventory or current compliance history. Being regulated does not itself establish a violation. EPA facility record

Ownership

Harris County’s 2026 assessor/GIS record identifies:

• Parcel/account: 0410220000020
• Situs: 2800 Decker Dr, Baytown
• Description: “EXXON REFINERY”
• Owner of record: EXXON CORP CORPORATION — exactly as recorded
• Recorded acreage: 1,019.769 acres

This is the assessor-listed landowner; I did not independently verify deed title or the current operating legal entity. Harris County parcel source

Floodplain coverage

An overlay of the parcel’s full mapped outline—not just its address point—with FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer returned:

Source: FEMA NFHL, queried October 4, 2026.

Limitations: The mapped outline measures approximately 1,008.8 acres, versus the assessor’s recorded 1,019.769 acres; the percentages use the mapped outline. I confirmed that this parcel matches the supplied address and refinery description, but could not establish that it includes every tract in the entire operating plant site. Thus, 6.17 acres / 0.6% is a parcel-specific result, not a verified total for all refinery holdings. Areas outside the mapped 100-year floodplain can still flood.

Based on available public records and environmental data, here are the specifics regarding the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery located at 2800 Decker Dr, Baytown, TX:

1. Is this plant site EPA-regulated? Yes. The site is heavily regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). It operates under federal Clean Air Act mandates, specifically holding a Title V Federal Operating Permit (Permit No. O1229). Because it is a major emitting facility, it is also subject to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (Facility ID 1007542). Over the years, the facility has been subject to routine EPA compliance monitoring, TCEQ enforcement actions, and federal consent decrees regarding emission reductions.

2. Who owns it? The refinery is owned and operated by Exxon Mobil Corporation. The Baytown complex is highly integrated and encompasses the refinery, a chemical plant, an olefins plant, and a global technology center, all falling under the ExxonMobil corporate umbrella (frequently operating through subsidiaries such as ExxonMobil Oil Corporation).

3. How much of it is in the 100-year floodplain? I cannot determine the exact acreage or precise percentage of the refinery that sits within the 100-year floodplain, as an exact aggregate numerical figure for the site is not explicitly published in standard public flood databases.

However, Harris County floodplain maps confirm that portions of the approximately 3,400-acre complex do sit squarely within the 100-year floodplain. Environmental advocacy reports analyzing Harris County flood data have highlighted specific infrastructure at the Baytown complex located inside this threatened flood boundary, most notably a tank farm containing dozens of storage tanks and at least two petroleum coke (petcoke) storage pits. Additionally, a related proposed 12-acre ExxonMobil Baytown Events Center project on the campus was also noted in planning documents to sit within the 100-year floodplain.

Based on the property and environmental records for the ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery located at the primary address of 2800 Decker Dr, Baytown, TX, here is the information:

• Is it EPA-Regulated? Yes, the plant is actively regulated by the EPA. The facility is registered in the EPA's Facility Registry Service (FRS ID: 110000502901) and actively reports under multiple federal environmental programs, including the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the Risk Management Program (RMP).
• Who owns it? According to the Harris County assessor records, the parcel is officially owned by EXXON CORP (Exxon Corporation).
• How much of it is in the 100-year floodplain? 0% (0 acres) of the primary ~148-acre parcel located at 2800 Decker Dr is within the 100-year floodplain (Special Flood Hazard Area). According to FEMA flood panel data, the property sits entirely in Zone X, with 98.3% categorized as an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard and the remaining 1.7% categorized within the 500-year floodplain (0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard).

(Note: The ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery is a massive, sprawling complex that spans thousands of acres across many separate parcels. While the specific parcel tied to the 2800 Decker Dr address is entirely outside the 100-year floodplain, other parcels deeper within the industrial complex may have different flood profiles.)

Let me look at the Superdome flood-zone article in more detail.Flood zone: Probably Zone X (minimal risk), but I couldn't check this against FEMA's official map myself.

• A 2024 walkthrough by a Louisiana commercial real estate site looked up this exact address on the LSU AgCenter flood map. It reported that the legend shows the Superdome is in flood zone X, a minimal risk area. However, the area just across Poydras Street is flood zone AE, a high risk area. That article also lists an "Effective Base Flood Elevation (2 Feet)," but it doesn't say clearly which spot that number applies to. A Zone X site normally has no base flood elevation, so the 2 feet likely refers to the AE area nearby.
• New Orleans uses the FEMA FIRM dated September 16, 2016. In New Orleans, Zone X is often levee-protected land rather than naturally high ground. I couldn't tell whether the Superdome is in plain Zone X, shaded X or the "reduced risk due to levee" version. I also don't know the FIRM panel number or whether a newer preliminary map changes anything.
• To confirm it, look up the address on FEMA's Map Service Center (msc.fema.gov) or the LSU AgCenter Louisiana flood maps for Orleans Parish. The Superdome is right next to an AE zone, so even a small mapping difference could matter.

Federal flood disaster declarations for Orleans Parish: About 30, though I couldn't check the exact number.

• That figure comes from a private flood-data website, which says Orleans Parish has been included in 30 federal flood-related disaster declarations. Elsewhere the same site describes them more broadly as 30 federal disaster declarations for flooding, hurricanes, or severe storms. So the count probably includes hurricanes and storms, not just declarations that are strictly floods.
• I couldn't check this directly in FEMA's OpenFEMA declarations data, so I can't confirm the exact number, what types of disaster it covers or how current it is. Counts also change depending on whether you include only major disasters (DR) or also emergency (EM) and fire (FM) declarations.
• The city's hazard mitigation plan has a table of Orleans Parish major disaster declarations from FEMA, starting with FEMA-DR-208 9/10/1965 · HURRICANE BETSY. That's a good official list to compare against.

For context: the same data site says Orleans Parish has recorded 127,250 NFIP claims ($7.2B paid) since 1978.

The parcel is in FEMA Zone X, which is outside the high-risk flood area (the Special Flood Hazard Area). FEMA has issued 31 flood-type disaster declarations covering Orleans Parish, 30 of them since 2000.

The parcel

• The address matches Orleans Parish parcel (GEOPIN) 41032318. Its listed address is 1500 Sugar Bowl Dr, and it covers about 41.7 acres.
• The parish source doesn't publish owner names, so I can't confirm from the record that this is the Superdome property. The address and size do fit.

FEMA flood zone, measured across the whole parcel outline using FEMA's current flood map data:

• No part of the parcel is in the high-risk flood area, a floodway or a coastal high-hazard (V) zone. Because none of it is high-risk, no base flood elevation applies.
• The middle of the parcel falls in the levee-protected part.
• "Reduced risk due to levee" means the area depends on the levee system. Zone X areas in New Orleans have flooded before, most notably in 2005 when levees failed during Hurricane Katrina.

Federal flood disaster declarations for Orleans Parish (FEMA disaster declaration records, current to 2026-10-03)

• 31 in total, 30 of them since 2000.
• The count includes both major disaster declarations (DR) and emergency declarations (EM). Sometimes one storm produced both, such as Hurricane/Tropical Storm Francine in 2024 and Ida in 2021. So 31 is not the number of separate storms. I didn't get the full list, so I can't split the total by type or by event.
• The most recent ones are Tropical Storm Francine (EM-3614, Sept 2024), Hurricane Francine (DR-4817, Sept 2024), Tropical Storm Nicholas (EM-3574, Sept 2021), Hurricane Ida (DR-4611, Aug 2021) and Tropical Storm Ida (EM-3568, Aug 2021).
• The tool decided which declarations count as "flood-type," and it includes hurricanes and coastal storms. If you count only declarations FEMA labels as floods, the number would be lower. I can't check exactly how the tool classified them.
• Only one declaration is counted before 2000. That's a little surprising given known older floods, such as the May 1995 flood. It may reflect how older records are classified, so treat the pre-2000 figure with some caution.

Flood insurance claims nearby

• The census tract containing the parcel (22071013400) recorded 1,345 National Flood Insurance Program claims from 1978 to 2024, with about $76.1 million paid.
• The largest events by claims paid were Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (about $44.5M), Tropical Storm Barry in 2019 (about $9.9M) and the May 1995 flood (about $9.2M).
• These claims cover the whole tract, not this parcel.

The best-supported answer is Zone X, specifically an area with reduced flood risk due to a levee; Orleans Parish has a published count of 30 flood-related federal declarations. Neither finding should be treated as a fully verified, current parcel-level determination or an all-time declaration count. (louisianacommercialrealty.com)

FEMA flood zone

The FEMA FIRMette reproduced for 1500 Sugar Bowl Drive shows the Superdome in Zone X—“Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee.” It identifies FIRM panel 22071C0229F, effective September 30, 2016. Importantly, the map’s levee-protected designation is more specific than simply calling this “unshaded X” or “minimal risk.” (louisianacommercialrealty.com)

Limitation: That FIRMette was generated on October 14, 2020. I could not verify the current FEMA layer against the property’s legal parcel boundaries, so I cannot confirm that every part of the parcel has the same designation or that no subsequent map revision applies. FEMA’s published inventory does confirm September 30, 2016 as Orleans Parish’s effective FIRM date as of April 30, 2024. (louisianacommercialrealty.com)

Orleans Parish flood-disaster declarations

30 is the count reported by FludZone using an August 2026 OpenFEMA data snapshot. Its definition is broad: flood-related declarations include hurricanes and coastal storms, and its list includes separate declarations for Tropical Storm Francine and Hurricane Francine—not necessarily 30 distinct flood events. I could not independently reproduce that count from FEMA’s API or establish it as an all-time total. (fludzone.com)

For comparison, the city’s 2020 hazard-mitigation plan reported 7 flood declarations, counting 17 tropical-cyclone declarations separately. Thus, the answer depends on the period and whether “flood” means a narrow hazard category or all flood-related storms. I cannot establish an authoritative current, all-time total from the accessible records. (ready.nola.gov)

FEMA flood zone

The Superdome property at 1500 Sugar Bowl Dr matches New Orleans parcel 41032318, approximately 41.69 acres. City parcel record

The parcel is entirely FEMA Zone X, but spans two mapped categories:

None of the parcel is mapped in a Special Flood Hazard Area (the FEMA 1%-annual-chance floodplain). This does not mean there is no flood risk, especially given the levee-related designation. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, retrieved October 4, 2026.

GIS-calculated flood-overlay acreage differs slightly from the city’s recorded acreage.

Orleans Parish flood disaster declarations

The returned OpenFEMA summary reports 31 flood-related federal declarations covering Orleans Parish, including 30 since 2000, with data current through October 3, 2026. OpenFEMA Disaster Declarations Summaries

Important counting caveat: That is a broad flood-related count, including hurricanes, severe/coastal storms and other flood-type incidents—not just declarations formally classified as “Flood.” It also includes both emergency declarations (EM) and major disaster declarations (DR), so one storm can produce two declarations. For example, the returned records include both an EM and a DR for Francine in 2024.

I cannot determine from this summary the count restricted to “Flood”-classified major disasters, or the number of unique flood events. The parish count also does not establish how often this particular parcel flooded.

Parcel Location: 1500 Sugar Bowl Dr, New Orleans, LA 70112 is the address for the Caesars Superdome (formerly the Mercedes-Benz Superdome).

Here is the specific information for this property and Orleans Parish:

FEMA Flood Zone The parcel at 1500 Sugar Bowl Dr is located in Flood Zone X. Zone X is designated by FEMA as an area of minimal flood risk. While the Superdome itself sits in this minimal-risk zone, it is worth noting that the hazard level shifts drastically very close by; the parcel just across Poydras Street is designated as Flood Zone AE (a high-risk special flood hazard area).

Federal Flood Disaster Declarations for Orleans Parish I cannot determine a single, definitive number of "flood" declarations without noting how FEMA classifies these events, because the vast majority of catastrophic flooding in New Orleans is historically categorized under "Hurricane" or "Severe Storm" rather than just "Flood". However, based on available local and federal data:

• Strict "Flood" Category: According to the City of New Orleans (NOLA Ready) Hazard Mitigation Plan, out of the parish's historical Presidential Disaster Declarations, 7 declarations were explicitly categorized as "Flooding".
• Combined Water/Storm Declarations: The same mitigation plan notes that 17 declarations were categorized as "Tropical Cyclones" (which is what actually caused the most devastating floods, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005). Recent 2026 data indicates that Orleans Parish has been included in at least 30 to 39 total federal disaster declarations specifically related to flooding, hurricanes, and severe coastal storms combined.

(Note: If you are pulling this data for a risk assessment, Orleans Parish holds a 100% annual probability of flooding according to the hazard mitigation office, despite the Superdome's specific footprint being mapped in Zone X.)

Based on the current FEMA and parcel data for the Caesars Superdome at 1500 Sugar Bowl Dr, here are the specifics:

FEMA Flood Zone The parcel is entirely in FEMA Flood Zone X and is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Specifically, the ~41.7-acre parcel sits across two Zone X subtypes:

• 90.8% of the parcel is classified as an "Area with reduced flood risk due to levee."
• 9.2% of the parcel is classified as a "0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard" (commonly known as the 500-year floodplain).

Federal Flood Disaster Declarations Orleans Parish has had 31 federal flood-type disaster declarations in its history. Of these, 30 have occurred since the year 2000. The most recent declarations include Hurricane Francine (September 2024), Hurricane Ida (August 2021), and Tropical Storm Nicholas (September 2021).

Short answer: Possibly, but I can't confirm that this tract can host a large data center. The area clearly attracts them: Google is reportedly building one about 3 miles west. But I couldn't verify who owns the parcel, whether it's inside Little Rock city limits, or how far it is from power and gas lines. The new local substation also looks too small for a big data center on its own.

How sure I am about which parcel this is I couldn't open the county record for 24R-034.00-025.00. The parcel next to it, 24R-034.00-025.01, is owned by the City of Little Rock (Port Authority). It's 38.77 acres in Section 34-1N-11W at 12300 Frazier Pike, and its legal description begins "COM NE COR 240 AC TRACT". That suggests your parcel is most of the rest of that roughly 240-acre tract, which fits ~186 acres. This is my inference, not confirmed. The neighboring parcel is also in the Fourche Island Drainage improvement district, which points to low-lying ground near the river. You'll need to check flood zones and wetlands.

Who controls zoning: it depends on city limits, which I couldn't confirm

• Possibly outside city limits. In 2021 the city's planning area was extended into Sections 34 & 35 Township 1 North, Range 11 West, both sides of Frazier Pike, just north of Harper Road, so this area was outside the city then. The 2025 annexation of 783 acres for the data center and Amazon covered land east of Fourche Bayou, roughly between Zeuber Road and Harper Road. I couldn't tell whether that included your parcel.
• If it's unincorporated, Pulaski County is in charge. Because of a 2025 state law (Act 314), Little Rock will no longer exercise any municipal authority or regulatory control outside the City's incorporated boundaries, effective August 5, 2025. The city has previously noted that There is no zoning outside the City in this area. The county is now in a fight over data center rules. The Quorum Court passed an ordinance 11–4, then County Judge Barry Hyde vetoed it. An override vote could come at the next scheduled quorum court meeting on October 27. The proposal would classify qualifying facilities as heavy industrial uses and require a Conditional Use Permit, with major equipment kept at least 500 feet from an existing residential dwelling or residential lot.
• If it's inside the city (or gets annexed), Little Rock is in charge. Port land is normally zoned I-3 (heavy industrial). Under the June 2026 ordinance, I-3 lists "Data center, accessory, major, hyperscale" as permitted uses. Data centers must stay at least 900 feet for hyperscale data centers, 250 feet for major data centers from residential property. Earlier drafts used different distances, so check the final adopted text.

Electricity: utility is Entergy Arkansas; distances not determined

• The nearest known new substation is Frazier Pike Substation at 7100 Thibault Road. I couldn't geocode it, so I can't give a distance. Its size is the bigger issue: three 50 MVA transformers, with the first completed in December 2025, the second completed in May 2026, and the third scheduled for December 1, 2028. That's about 150 MVA in total, already serving Welspun, Trex, Amazon and Faymonville.
• For comparison, the Google project nearby will likely draw more than 100 megawatts of power. A large data center on 186 acres would almost certainly need its own high-voltage connection and dedicated substation, which Entergy and the regional grid operator (MISO) would have to study.
• The nearest high-voltage line I found in grid-planning records is a 115 kV transmission line between the Fourche and Little Rock East substations. I couldn't locate it relative to the parcel. The marketing site for the port's adjacent "megasite" advertises an On Site Entergy Arkansas Substation, but I couldn't confirm that serves this parcel.

Natural gas: utility is Summit Utilities; distance not determined The megasite lists Supplier · Summit Utilities Diameter of Line · 10" High Pressure Steel. I couldn't confirm where that line runs relative to your parcel. A line that size is fine for backup generators. It's probably not enough for large on-site power generation, which would likely need a connection to an interstate pipeline. I didn't identify one nearby.

Other things to check

• Wetlands: Google's site required permission to dredge and fill about 16 acres of wetlands near Fourche Creek. Expect similar Army Corps permitting here.
• Airport: Clinton National Airport is 3.6 miles away. An airport radar facility has sat inside the port's land (This is the site of a radar unit for the Little Rock National Airport.), so tall structures would need an FAA height review.
• Water and sewer: The megasite lists Water: Central Arkansas Water and Sewer: Little Rock Water Reclamation Authority.

To get the missing answers:

1. Pull the county assessor record for the owner and the city's GIS map for city limits and zoning.
2. Request a load study from Entergy Arkansas's economic development office.
3. Ask Summit Utilities to map its gas mains near the parcel.
4. Get a FEMA flood map check and a wetlands delineation.

Short answer: Yes, it looks physically workable for a data center. The tract is 186.5 acres, flat, out of the mapped floodplain and has no wetlands on it. Power, gas and zoning are where the open questions are, and none of them can be settled from public data. Here is what I found and what I couldn't determine.

Parcel: 24R-034.00-025.00 on Frazier Pike. The owner is the City of Little Rock (Port Authority). It's 186.53 acres with no buildings, and the appraised value is $238,390. The county record shows no zoning or land use.

Distances you asked about

Transmission (measured from the parcel edge, HIFLD data)

• The nearest line is an Entergy Arkansas 115 kV line, in service, 0.99 mi away.
• The nearest high-voltage line is Entergy's 500 kV Wrightsville–Keo line, 3.84 mi away.
• Only one line is within 2 km, so the redundancy check came back negative.

Substations

• The nearest is an unnamed 115 kV substation 1.87 mi away (34.7043, -92.1932).
• The nearest 345 kV-or-higher substation is Wrightsville (500/115 kV), 5.4 mi away.
• There are 11 substations within 10 km.
• A withdrawn MISO generator request was named "L.R. 145th St – L.R. Port 115 kV." That suggests a Port 115 kV substation exists, but I can't confirm it's the one 1.87 mi away.

Gas

• The nearest interstate pipeline is Texas Eastern, 1.18 mi from the parcel edge. Another dataset measures it at 1.63 mi, probably from the parcel's center.
• Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America is about 3.1 mi away.
• The local gas utility is Summit Utilities Arkansas (formerly CenterPoint Arkla). Its large-customer firm tariff is LCS-1.
• Enable Gas Transmission posts no unsubscribed firm capacity at any of its 105 points in Pulaski County.
• I can't determine deliverable gas volume. That takes a request to the pipeline and a will-serve letter from Summit.

Electric utility

• The Arkansas state utility map shows Entergy Arkansas.
• The national (HIFLD) territory map can't tell Entergy from First Electric Cooperative at this point. Confirm with both before relying on Entergy.
• The grid operator is MISO. Arkansas industrial power averages 7.84¢/kWh year-to-date.

Power capacity can't be determined from map data. Very large campuses usually need a 230–500 kV connection. That points to the 500 kV line or Wrightsville rather than the 115 kV lines. Only Entergy's load-interconnection study can confirm what's available.

Who governs zoning: this needs checking

• The Census map of city limits places the parcel outside any incorporated city, which would make Pulaski County the land-use authority. Whether the county has a zoning ordinance wasn't verified, and no zoning district or rules came back.
• That conflicts with two other facts: the owner is Little Rock's Port Authority, and the mailing city is Little Rock. Census boundaries can lag behind annexations. Arkansas cities can also exercise planning authority outside their limits.
• Ask both Little Rock Planning and Pulaski County Planning which one has jurisdiction and what the zoning is.

Other site factors

• Flood: 98.3% is FEMA Zone X, an area whose reduced risk depends on a levee. The rest is minimal-hazard Zone X, and none is in the 100-year floodplain. The site still depends on that levee, the Arkansas River is 1 mi away, and the local inland-flood risk rating is relatively high.
• Terrain and soils: only 11 ft of elevation change and about 0.1° average slope. The soils are well-drained silt loams with moderate shrink-swell. All of it is classed as prime farmland.
• Water and sewer: the site is in Central Arkansas Water's service area, and the Fourche Creek wastewater plant is 1.91 mi away. The sewer provider and capacity are unknown because the EPA permit source didn't respond. The area is in severe drought (D2) as of 9/29/2026.
• Fiber: none is mapped on the parcel. The nearest fiber-served area is about 1.23 mi away, and the nearest exchange point is Dallas (about 296 mi, roughly 4.7 ms minimum delay).
• Airport: the site is about 3.5 mi from Little Rock's main airport (LIT), under its Class C airspace. It's inside the FAA's notice radius, so tall structures and construction cranes may need FAA filings.
• Hazards: seismic design category D. In FEMA's risk ratings, tornado and ice storm risk are very high and earthquake risk is relatively high.
• Environmental: no contamination records on the parcel or within the standard search distances. No wetlands, critical habitat or protected land are on the parcel, but a ditch and a riverine wetland run along its edge. Two industrial plants that report toxic releases to the EPA, Trex and Welspun, are within 1 mi. Air quality meets all federal standards.
• Incentives: Arkansas's data center sales and use tax exemption (Acts 819/2023 and 548/2025) applies, along with the Create Rebate and Tax Back programs.

Not determined

• Zoning district and rules.
• Which utility serves the site (Entergy or First Electric).
• Transmission and substation capacity.
• Gas volume and pressure.
• Sewer capacity.
• Two checks failed: EPA environmental facilities and the OpenStreetMap grid data. They weren't charged and can be retried.

I used 500 credits; 3,590 remain.

Bottom line

Potentially—but I would treat this as a conditional data-center candidate, not a confirmed “powered site.” There is credible evidence of nearby Entergy transmission, a newly operating substation, and planned industrial utilities. However, I could not verify available electrical MW, redundant service, exact utility distances from this parcel’s boundary, or a parcel-specific data-center entitlement. The sources also conflict on zoning and gas infrastructure. (buildingsandsites.com)

Desktop review as of October 3, 2026. Importantly, most published utility information covers the much larger Little Rock Port Megasite—not this individual 186-acre tract.

1. Parcel identification: an acreage discrepancy

Arkansas’s levee-parcel report identifies 24R-034.00-025.00 as LR Port Authority property in Section 34, Township 1 North, Range 11 West, but reports:

• 190.97 assessor acres
• 189.31 GIS acres
• 189.21 acres within a leveed area

That corroborates the parcel’s identity, but does not reconcile the approximately 186 acres you supplied. I could not verify a current survey, subdivision history, or current title record. These differences matter when measuring from property boundaries and calculating developable acreage. (gis.arkansas.gov)

2. Transmission, substations and gas

The distances below have different reference points; they should not be treated as equivalent parcel-boundary measurements.

What the new substation actually establishes

Entergy reports that Frazier Pike’s first 50-MVA transformer was completed in December 2025, and its second in May 2026. A third is scheduled for December 1, 2028; additional equipment is planned for 2028 and a new 115-kV line for 2029. The station also serves existing and expanding Port employers. These equipment ratings are not a commitment of spare capacity to this tract. (entergy.com)

Consequently, I would not assign this parcel a supportable data-center MW rating without an Entergy study identifying the delivery point, available firm capacity, outage contingency performance, required upgrades, cost and energization date.

3. Who governs zoning?

The best-supported working answer is Pulaski County Planning & Development if this parcel remains unincorporated—but I could not conclusively verify its current municipal-boundary status.

The distinction is important:

• The certification says the megasite was outside Little Rock, without zoning, with I-3 Heavy Industrial contemplated upon annexation.
• The state site-selection listing, updated September 16, 2026, still says “Within City Limits: No.”
• Conversely, the promotional megasite website simply lists “Heavy Industrial.” These statements do not establish current parcel-specific zoning. (buildingsandsites.com)

Do not rely on Little Rock’s older extraterritorial-jurisdiction maps. Little Rock expressly states that, effective August 5, 2025, it no longer exercises planning or regulatory authority outside city limits. Pulaski County subsequently began administering development controls in former ETJ areas. (littlerock.gov)

For a written determination:

• Pulaski County Planning & Development: 501-340-8260. Ask for the governing jurisdiction, applicable land-use controls, and current data-center approval requirements for this exact parcel. (pulaskicounty.net)
• Little Rock zoning verification: 501-371-4844, lrzoning@littlerock.gov. Ask whether any annexation ordinance now includes the parcel and, if so, its effective zoning and data-center use classification. (littlerock.gov)

I would not characterize this tract as “data center permitted by right” based on the available records.

4. Other material feasibility issues

Levee, drainage and foundations

The parcel-specific levee inventory places almost the entire historical GIS parcel within a leveed area. That is a reason to investigate levee dependence—not proof of an unacceptable site, but also not proof of negligible flood risk. I did not establish the parcel’s current FEMA designation or design flood elevation. (gis.arkansas.gov)

The larger megasite’s June 5, 2024 preliminary geotechnical report identifies poor to very poor drainage, weak/compressible soils extending approximately 23–28 feet, and groundwater encountered at 1.5–13 feet. Those are meaningful foundation and sitework warnings, although the limited megasite borings are not a parcel-wide geotechnical conclusion for your tract. (littlerockportmegasite.com)

FAA restrictions

A January 22, 2025 FAA letter in the certification package discusses the existing VORTAC facility, access road and restrictive aerial easement. Release depends on commissioning the replacement and decommissioning/removing the existing installation. I could not verify completion or determine which restrictions burden this particular parcel. Obtain the recorded easements and releases before assuming unrestricted building coverage or height. (arkansassiteselection.com)

Water, sewer and fiber

The larger megasite advertises Central Arkansas Water, a 16-inch main, 3 MGD excess water capacity, 1.8 MGD wastewater capacity, and AT&T/UPN fiber. These are useful leads, but I could not verify parcel-specific service commitments, completed sewer connections, or physically diverse fiber routes. (littlerockportmegasite.com)

My assessment

Proceed to utility and entitlement diligence, but not to an unconditional acquisition or a promised MW delivery schedule. My first requirements would be:

1. Current survey/title and FAA-easement clearance.
2. Written county/city jurisdiction and data-center-use determination.
3. Entergy capacity-and-schedule study for your intended load.
4. Parcel-specific flood/drainage, wetlands and foundation evaluation.
5. Summit confirmation of the actual main location and deliverable gas capacity, especially if on-site generation is contemplated.

The public evidence supports industrial-development potential near substantial infrastructure. It does not yet demonstrate that this particular 186-acre tract can support a specified data-center campus, power load or completion date.

Bottom line

This tract merits data-center diligence, but I cannot confirm that it can support a particular MW load or is entitled for a data center. It has substantial, nearly level acreage and relatively nearby transmission and natural gas. The principal unresolved issues are deliverable electric capacity, redundant fiber, levee-related flood exposure, and zoning/approval authority.

The Arkansas parcel record confirms 186.53 acres, parcel 24R-034.00-025.00, on Frazier Pike, owned by CITY OF LITTLE ROCK (PORT AUTHORITY). Ownership does not, by itself, establish municipal zoning jurisdiction. Parcel source

Infrastructure: specific distances

These are mapped straight-line distances from the parcel boundary—not its centroid, road distances, or engineered connection routes.

Sources: HIFLD transmission, HIFLD substations, EIA natural-gas pipelines, Arkansas utility territories.

Important data limitation: The electrical infrastructure layers are frozen, with a reported data vintage of June 2021. Treat the distances as screening estimates requiring current utility confirmation.

Also, a closer pipeline at 0.98 mile is Enterprise’s ATEX hydrocarbon-gas-liquids line, not a natural-gas fuel-supply line.

Who governs zoning?

The available boundary screen points to unincorporated Pulaski County, making the county the starting point for land-use jurisdiction—not automatically the City of Little Rock or its Port Authority. However, that finding comes from Census incorporated-place boundaries, not a verified local zoning or annexation determination. Boundary source

I could not determine:

• A zoning district for this parcel.
• Whether an applicable county zoning ordinance exists here.
• Whether a data center is permitted by right, conditionally permitted or requires rezoning.
• Whether annexation, municipal planning authority or port-specific restrictions affect approvals.
• Applicable setbacks, height, lot coverage or generator-use restrictions.

Obtain a written parcel-specific jurisdiction and permitted-use determination from Pulaski County, coordinated with Little Rock Planning and the Port Authority. The “Little Rock” situs and city ownership are not enough to establish zoning authority.

Physical suitability and other constraints

• Terrain is favorable: USGS screening shows elevations of approximately 235–246 feet, mean slope 0.2%, and 95.2% of the parcel at or below 2% grade. That supports preliminary layout feasibility, but does not establish soil bearing capacity or drainage performance. USGS source
• Flood mapping has a major qualification: FEMA maps zero acres in the Special Flood Hazard Area, but 183.45 acres—98.3% of the tract—are Zone X with reduced flood risk due to a levee. Only 3.08 acres are ordinary minimal-hazard Zone X. Do not interpret this as flood-free: levee performance, residual inundation and interior drainage need specific review for critical infrastructure. FEMA source
• No mapped wetland overlap: The wetland inventory reports 0 acres on the parcel, but a mapped riverine feature is roughly 0.002 mile—about 11 feet—from the boundary. This is not a jurisdictional wetland delineation. Wetlands source
• Fiber is not demonstrated: FCC-based screening shows no reported fiber service in the parcel’s covered cells; the nearest fiber-served cell is approximately 1.23 miles away. That is not a distance to a fiber cable, and does not rule out private enterprise fiber. Diverse carrier routes remain unverified. Broadband source
• Water/sewer remain incomplete: The tract falls in Central Arkansas Water’s mapped service area, but main locations, pressure and cooling-water capacity are unknown. The wastewater source failed, so sewer provider and capacity could not be determined. Water-service source

Recommendation

Advance it as a conditional candidate, not a power-ready or entitled site. The first decision gates should be:

1. Entergy feasibility study for the proposed initial and ultimate MW load, including firm service, redundancy, upgrades and schedule.
2. Written zoning/jurisdiction confirmation and Port Authority site-control terms.
3. Levee, drainage and geotechnical assessment establishing usable acreage and critical-equipment elevations.
4. Two physically diverse fiber-route proposals, plus water/sewer capacity confirmation.
5. If on-site gas generation is contemplated, firm gas-delivery and air-permitting feasibility.

I cannot responsibly assign a supportable MW capacity from acreage and infrastructure proximity alone.

Based on recent developments and public infrastructure data for the Port of Little Rock, yes, this tract is highly capable of supporting a data center.

The parcel you referenced (24R-034.00-025.00) is owned by the Little Rock Port Authority. While Pulaski County assessor data lists it at slightly larger than 186 acres (approximately 190 assessor acres / 189 GIS acres), it is located in a prime area that local authorities have aggressively geared toward heavy industrial and hyperscale tech development. In fact, Google is currently constructing a massive $1 billion+ data center nearby within the port.

Here are the specific details regarding the infrastructure and zoning for this site:

1. Distance to Substation

Distance: On-site / Immediately Adjacent In September 2026, Entergy Arkansas officially commissioned the new Frazier Pike Substation. This facility was constructed directly at the Port of Little Rock specifically to manage the massive electricity demands of incoming data centers and heavy industrial growth. Given the parcel's coordinates near Frazier Pike, the substation is essentially adjacent to or directly bordering the tract.

2. Distance to Transmission Lines

Distance: On-site / Immediately Adjacent High-voltage Entergy transmission lines run directly through the Port of Little Rock to feed the new Frazier Pike Substation. Furthermore, on October 1, 2026, Entergy was awarded a $13.7 million federal grant from the Department of Energy to upgrade and integrate advanced transmission line technology at the Port of Little Rock. This upgrade is explicitly designated to support high-capacity loads from AI and data center expansions, meaning grid capacity at the property line is exceptional.

3. Distance to Natural Gas

Distance: On-site / Property Line Natural gas at the Port of Little Rock is provided by Summit Utilities. The port’s Frazier Pike and Megasite tracts are serviced by an existing 10-inch high-pressure steel main. You will not need to trench gas lines over long distances, as the infrastructure is already heavily integrated into the industrial park's footprint.

(Note: While utility mains run directly to the port's property lines, exact footages for your tap-in point would require a site survey based on where you place the facility on the 186-acre footprint).

4. Who Governs Zoning?

The City of Little Rock governs the zoning. Even though the land is owned and marketed by the Little Rock Port Authority (which operates as an arm of the city), the City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department is the ultimate jurisdictional authority for zoning, site plan reviews, and building permits. The land is currently zoned Heavy Industrial (I-3), which is the proper zoning for a data center. Compliance with city ordinances, including stormwater management and environmental reviews (such as wetland mitigation, if required by the Army Corps of Engineers), will be handled through the city's planning department.

Based on the geospatial and parcel data for the 186.5-acre tract (Parcel ID: 24R-034.00-025.00), yes, this site is highly capable of supporting a data center.

The 186-acre footprint is well above the standard requirement for hyperscale data centers (which typically require 50–100 acres), and it has excellent proximity to critical heavy utilities.

Here are the specific details you requested:

Utility Infrastructure

• Distance to Transmission Lines: The nearest transmission line is 0.99 miles away (a 115 kV AC overhead line owned by Entergy Arkansas). There is also a massive 500 kV transmission line located 3.84 miles away connecting to the Wrightsville substation.
• Distance to Substations: The nearest substation is 1.87 miles away (a 115 kV facility). There are 11 substations within a 10 km radius, including a major 500 kV substation (Wrightsville) located 5.4 miles away.
• Distance to Natural Gas: The nearest interstate natural gas pipeline is 1.18 miles away (operated by Texas Eastern Transmission Co). There is also a hydrocarbon gas liquids pipeline 0.98 miles away (operated by Enterprise Products). This proximity is excellent if on-site gas-powered backup generation or fuel cells are being considered.

Zoning & Governance

• Zoning Jurisdiction: Geographically, the parcel sits just outside the incorporated limits of Little Rock, which places it under Pulaski County land-use jurisdiction.
• Ownership & Control: However, property records confirm the tract is owned by the City of Little Rock (Port Authority). Because it is an industrial port tract owned by the Port Authority, development, land use guidelines, and leasing/sales will be directly managed by the Little Rock Port Authority.

Conclusion: Port tracts are often premier targets for data center site selection. Between the accommodating industrial nature of port authorities, the sheer size of the plot, and the fact that 115 kV power and interstate gas pipelines are both within roughly a mile of the parcel boundaries, this site possesses the necessary fundamentals for a large-scale data center facility.

Content is snippet-limited. Let me search more targeted.I couldn't find the actual setback numbers for this parcel. The county has a solar ordinance, but my searches only returned its title and short snippets, not the text, so I can't tell you the required distances from dwellings, property lines or roads.

What I could confirm

• An ordinance exists. The county's ordinance list includes "Ordinance #44 - Solar Energy System". The county site also has a code-of-ordinances file named "2020-Additional-Solar-2026.pdf," which suggests the solar rules were added to the code in 2026. I couldn't read the solar section of either one.
• Permitted districts are only partly known. At the July 7 (2026) Board of Supervisors meeting, a wording change to the solar ordinance was on the agenda. The zoning administrator, Russ Jergens, called it a missed definition: the ordinance didn't use the county's newer terminology of "agricultural/residential," instead using the older "agricultural/conservation." So the ordinance clearly covers the county's agricultural district. I couldn't find out whether solar is allowed outright there or needs a special permit, or which other districts allow it.
• I don't know this parcel's zoning. Nothing I found shows what district parcel 000001218200001 is in. The coordinates fall roughly 6 miles east of the city of Pocahontas, which looks like unincorporated farmland. If so, the agricultural district is likely, but I'm inferring that, not reading it from a zoning map.
• No moratorium found. At that July meeting, several Fonda area residents asked questions about setbacks and possible moratoriums on large scale solar projects, and Supervisor Peter Seehusen asked what they should do to seek major changes. Jergens said they should ask to meet with the solar committee, which includes two members of the Board of Supervisors, Jergens, the conservation director and the county engineer. At that point "We haven't had any permits come before us yet," Supervisor Kyle Smith said. I found no record of a moratorium being adopted, but I can't rule out one passed since then.
• Related background. In June 2026 the supervisors passed a solar-friendly zoning plan amendment; the auditor says there is no approval on Princess City Solar yet. That's a proposed project of about 850 acres around the Pocahontas County/Calhoun County line, near Fonda in the south of the county, a long way from this parcel. Nothing I found puts this parcel in that project.

What I couldn't determine

• Setbacks from dwellings, property lines and roads
• The parcel's zoning district
• Whether a 39-acre system needs a special exception permit
• Whether the ordinance treats small farm systems differently from utility-scale ones
• The current moratorium status

How to get answers: Ask the zoning administrator, Russ Jergens, for the current text of Ordinance #44 with the July 2026 amendment and for this parcel's zoning. The ordinance and zoning forms (including the Special Exception Use Permit application) are on pocahontascounty.iowa.gov under Board of Supervisors → Ordinances and under Zoning. The Assessor's Beacon parcel viewer will confirm the parcel's legal description and whether it's inside a city's limits.

The county has a solar ordinance, Pocahontas County Solar Ordinance #44 (document dated Jan. 29, 2026), and I found no moratorium. The main open question is which zoning district this parcel is in, so I can't confirm whether solar is allowed here.

The parcel: It's in unincorporated Lake Township, so Pocahontas County controls land use. It's about 38.96 acres of farmland. The parcel data is from a 2017 statewide snapshot that lists [owner on file] as owner and gives no zoning.

Setbacks (ordinance PDF, section 4(C)(3)):

• Homes: 300 ft from homes of neighbors who aren't part of the project, unless they sign a waiver (4(C)(3)(b)).
• Property lines: 75 ft, except lines shared with landowners who are part of the project (4(C)(3)(a)).
• Roads: 125 ft from the road right-of-way line (4(C)(3)(c)).
• Public conservation land: 150 ft from wildlife management areas and state recreation areas (4(C)(3)(d)).

Other limits:

• Panels can be at most 20 ft tall at full tilt (4(C)(2)).
• Noise can be at most 50 dBA at homes next to the project (4(C)(17)).
• A single utility-scale project can cover at most 1,000 acres (4(C)(1)(a)).
• Concentrating solar power is banned (4(B)).
• Security fencing that meets the National Electrical Code is required, and razor wire is discouraged (4(C)(6)).

Rough effect on this parcel: The parcel is roughly a 1,310 × 1,310 ft square. If all four neighbors stay out of the project, the 75-ft property-line setback alone leaves about 31 acres. Road and home setbacks would cut that further, but I didn't check where the roads or nearby homes are.

Where solar is allowed: The ordinance allows solar farms only with a special permit, in three districts: Agricultural-Conservation (AC), Light Industrial (LI) and Heavy Industrial (HI). No district allows them by right.

• I can't tell which district this parcel is in. I found no county zoning map, and the parcel record has no zoning. It's farmland, so AC is likely, but that isn't confirmed.
• The district names may be out of date. On July 7, 2026, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to Ordinance #44 "correcting the names of the zoning districts" (minutes). The names above come from the January text, so check them against the amended version.

Moratorium: None found as of Oct. 2, 2026. That's based on searches of news, county pages and board minutes, plus NREL's ordinance dataset. It isn't a guarantee, so confirm with the county zoning office.

What I couldn't determine:

• The parcel's zoning district
• Decommissioning or bond rules (none were pulled from the ordinance)
• The ordinance's exact adoption year
• Whether Lake Township has its own rules (none found)

To confirm the district and get the amended text, call the Pocahontas County zoning administrator.

Bottom line

I found a county solar ordinance, but I cannot confirm this parcel’s zoning or give an unconditional determination that a solar farm is allowed there. The following is a records-based assessment as of October 3, 2026, for parcel 000001218200001, using your acreage and coordinates.

Ordinance status

The Board adopted Solar Energy Systems Ordinance #44 on February 24, 2026, effective after publication. On March 3, 2026, county minutes said its publication notice would be sent to the newspaper. I could not verify the actual publication/effective date or locate a later amendment. Thus, adoption is documented, but the effective-date check remains incomplete. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

Utility-scale solar: setbacks and districts

For a proposed commercial solar farm, the posted ordinance’s §4.C(3), pages 3–4, specifies:

These apply to above-ground structures, including fences, not merely panels. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

Waivers: Participating/nonparticipating owners may consent to reduced setbacks; district principal-structure setbacks then apply. Signed waivers must be filed with zoning. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

Eligible districts (§4.B): Agricultural-Conservation (AC), Light Industrial (LI), and Heavy Industrial (HI), each requiring a conditional-use permit. Utility-scale solar is prohibited in other districts. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

If instead this is on-site farm solar: Personal systems are accessory uses in any district; §3 specifies 300 feet from a residence outside the system area, subject to waiver. Do not automatically apply the utility-scale table. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

What I cannot determine for this parcel

• Actual zoning and county jurisdiction: I could not retrieve an authoritative parcel-specific zoning map or record confirming the district and municipal-boundary status. County officials expressly said this ordinance applies only in unincorporated areas, not inside cities. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)
• A significant district-label discrepancy: The county’s separately posted general zoning code lists A-1 Agricultural and I-1 Industrial, rather than the solar ordinance’s district labels above. I could not locate an adopted map/code update or official interpretation reconciling them. I would not assume that agricultural land automatically qualifies. The general code identifies the official zoning map and amendments as controlling. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)
• Buildable acreage: I could not establish surveyed boundaries, road ROW limits, nearby dwelling/building locations, or applicable waivers. Consequently, I cannot calculate how much of your approximately 39 acres remains usable.
• Reduced-setback distances: Without a confirmed zoning district and applicable dimensional standards, I cannot give the numerical setbacks that would replace the solar minimums after a waiver.

Moratorium

I did not find an adopted Pocahontas County solar moratorium in the public records I could locate. That is not a verified “no moratorium.” The documented 2026 action was adoption of a permitting ordinance, but that alone does not establish whether a separate restriction was subsequently imposed. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

Before relying on the parcel for development, request written confirmation from Pocahontas County Zoning, (712) 335-3188, covering: the parcel’s district, the district-label discrepancy, Ordinance #44’s effective date/current text, any current moratorium, and the applicable ROW and dwelling setbacks. The phone number appears on the county’s permit application. (pocahontascounty.iowa.gov)

For a utility-scale solar project, the county ordinance identified for this parcel requires 300 feet from habitable dwellings, 75 feet from nonparticipating property lines, and 125 feet from road right-of-way lines. However, I could not confirm the parcel’s zoning district or the corrected district names following a July 2026 amendment, so this is not a determination that solar is allowed on this parcel.

Parcel and jurisdiction

The parcel lookup matched 000001218200001, approximately 38.96 acres, near your coordinates in unincorporated Pocahontas County, Lake Township. County land-use jurisdiction applies. The available parcel record labels its land use “AGRICULTURAL,” but that is not a verified zoning designation. The parcel source is a 2017 snapshot.

Solar setbacks

The available extraction of Pocahontas County Solar Ordinance #44, January 29, 2026 reports:

Limits of this finding: I could not verify the detailed waiver formalities or exactly which project component establishes the measurement endpoint. I also have not mapped nearby dwellings, surveyed rights-of-way, or participating ownership boundaries, so I cannot determine the remaining buildable acreage.

Permitted districts and approval

The January ordinance extraction lists utility-scale solar under special approval, rather than as an outright permitted use, in:

• Agricultural-Conservation District (AC)
• Light Industrial District (LI)
• Heavy Industrial District (HI)

Important amendment: The July 7, 2026 Board of Supervisors minutes report approval of an amendment to Ordinance #44 “correcting the names of the zoning districts.” The available result does not provide the replacement names or amended text. Accordingly, I cannot confirm that AC/LI/HI remain the correct current district names, nor whether this parcel is in an eligible district.

Moratorium

No solar moratorium was found in the available check dated October 2, 2026, covering county pages, minutes, news, and the ordinance dataset. That is “none found,” not definitive confirmation that none exists; there is no verified expiration date to report.

Other identified requirements

The same ordinance extraction reports:

• 20-foot maximum panel height at maximum tilt (§4(C)(2)).
• 50 dBA noise limit at residences when adjacent to a residence or residential district (§4(C)(17)).
• Required security fencing or walls consistent with the National Electrical Code (§4(C)(6)).
• Concentrating solar power systems prohibited (§4(B)).

Bottom line: Use 300 / 75 / 125 feet as preliminary utility-scale siting constraints, with the exceptions above. Before relying on this parcel’s eligibility, obtain the July 2026 amended ordinance, written parcel zoning confirmation, and current moratorium status from the county zoning administrator. These findings should not automatically be applied to a smaller accessory/on-farm solar installation, whose classification I have not established.

Based on the most recent regulatory updates in Pocahontas County, Iowa (specifically the passage of Solar Ordinance #44 and subsequent comprehensive plan amendments in mid-2026), here is how the county’s solar regulations apply to a farm parcel:

1. Permitted Zoning Districts Commercial solar projects are permitted in Agricultural-Residential (R-1) zoning districts. The county board recently updated the comprehensive plan to specifically allow renewable energy projects (wind and solar) in these R-1 districts, which the county defines as unincorporated areas with "marginal agland" that often serve as buffer zones between municipal land uses and prime agricultural lands.

• Impact on your parcel: Because your 39-acre parcel is a farm property, its eligibility for a commercial solar lease depends on whether the county classifies it as prime agricultural land or marginal Agricultural-Residential (R-1) land. If it falls into the R-1 classification, solar development is permitted subject to county approval standards.

2. Setbacks from Dwellings, Property Lines, and Roads I cannot determine the exact numerical setback requirements (in feet) for dwellings, property lines, or roads. While Pocahontas County officially passed Ordinance #44 ("Solar Energy System") in early 2026, the full text and specific setback tables of the ordinance are not yet publicly available in the county's digital code archives. However, the ordinance mandates that all projects go before the newly established Solar Approval Committee to ensure they meet the county's "adopted approval standards" for structural setbacks and environmental impact.

3. Moratorium Status There is currently no solar moratorium in Pocahontas County. While neighboring counties in Iowa have enacted temporary moratoriums or highly restrictive setbacks to block solar development, Pocahontas County has taken the route of active regulation. In July 2026, the county board officially appointed members (Supervisors Brent Aden and Kyle Smith) to the Solar Approval Committee to begin evaluating projects. The ordinance and committee were largely established in response to the proposed 156-megawatt "Princess City Solar" project spearheaded by TED Renewables, which seeks to lease acreage in Pocahontas and Calhoun counties.

Next Steps for the Parcel: Because the exact setbacks are restricted to the internal text of Ordinance #44, you will need to contact the Pocahontas County Zoning/EMA Director directly to confirm your parcel's exact zoning designation (whether it qualifies as R-1 marginal agland) and to request the specific setback worksheet required by the Solar Approval Committee.

Based on Pocahontas County's Solar Ordinance (#44), which applies countywide (this parcel is in Lake Township), the requirements for utility-scale solar are as follows:

Setbacks:

• From Dwellings: 300 feet from habitable dwellings of non-participating landowners. This requirement can be waived by a signed agreement.
• From Property Lines: 75 feet from property lines. However, this is waived where a property line divides two participating landowners.
• From Roads: 125 feet from road rights-of-way.

Permitted Districts:

• The ordinance lists the Agricultural-Conservation (AC), Light Industrial (LI), and Heavy Industrial (HI) districts as special districts for solar. (Note: The specific zoning district covering your farm parcel could not be determined from the county GIS layer, so you will need to verify with the county whether the parcel falls into AC, LI, or HI).

Moratorium:

• No moratorium was found for Pocahontas County. Targeted searches of county records, minutes, and news up through early October 2026 indicate no active solar or wind moratorium.

Additional Requirements:

• Height limit: Solar panels cannot exceed 20 feet in height at their maximum tilt.
• Noise limits: Noise cannot exceed 50 dBA at residences adjacent to a residence or residential district.
• Amendments: The county Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment on July 7, 2026, to correct zoning district names in the ordinance, but the ordinance remains active with no changes to the aforementioned setback requirements.

(Note: Concentrating solar power systems are explicitly prohibited under this ordinance. Fencing must comply with the National Electrical Code to restrict access, and the use of razor wire is discouraged.)