Better Plan, Wisconsin

MEETING DEALING WITH WIND TURBINES ENDS BEFORE IT BEGINS

SOURCE: WTOL, www.wtol.com 

By Tim Miller

30 June 2011

“I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

RIGA TOWNSHIP — A special meeting to deal with wind turbines ended before it even began, the latest twist in an ongoing controversial project.

Township trustees were set to take some kind of action Thursday night on an ordinance to allow the turbines on farmers’ fields and the meeting drew so much interest that the fire chief limited attendance into the building to 200 people.

With about a hundred people stuck outside, the trustees decided to postpone the meeting to another date, at a larger venue.

Farmers who are poised to sign leases with wind turbine companies stand to make profits from the use of their land and turbines are widely seen as a new “crop” in Michigan. But the opponents come from Riga Township and surrounding communities. They say the wind turbines will destroy the peaceful country setting and lead to health hazards.

Trustee Paul Dusseau says he’s saddened by the situation. “I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

All sides did seem to agree that is was the right to reschedule the meeting.

Josh Nolan of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition said, “You can’t have a project like this that is going to affect not only the people of Riga Township, but those of Sylvania Township, Palmyra Township, Blissfield Township, Ogden Township, Whiteford Township. Everyone in the area is going to be affected by this. You can’t have some major project like that and then disallow people from participating in the process.”

Supervisor Jeff Simon says the trustees will listen to the public at the next meeting and will carefully review the ordinance before they make any decision. Residents are encouraged to visit the township’s website and local newspapers to see when the next special meeting will be held.

From Illinois

LAWSUIT FILED

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com

July 1, 2011

By Donna Barker,

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

PRINCETON – A group of Bureau County residents have filed a complaint against the county of Bureau, the Bureau County Board, each member of the Bureau County Board as individuals in their official capacities, and against Walnut Ridge Wind LLC.

The goal of the complaint is to stop the building of the proposed 150-turbine Walnut Ridge Wind wind farm in northwest Bureau County.

Filing the complaint are 37 Bureau County residents whose properties are situated around the proposed Walnut Ridge Wind site. Spokespersons for the group are Ron Amerein, Deanna Wilt and Steve Hamrick. Representing the group is Rockford attorney Rick Porter of Hinshaw and Culbertson.

In a press release issued Thursday, the spokespersons claim there were “significant procedural mistakes in the process and substantial flaws in the findings” of the county board.

Filed Wednesday at the Bureau County Courthouse, the 450-page, 117-count complaint claims the county board did not have the authority or jurisdiction to grant the original conditional use permits to Walnut Ridge Wind LLC in August 2008, nor the authority to approve the permit extension requests granted by the county board in April 2011.

According to the complaint, there was improper public notice of the zoning application and the request to extend those applications; that the permits lapsed because the turbine company did not act on those permits for three years; and that the original permits are void because Bureau County had no jurisdiction to issue them. In addition, the complaint describes why the court should conclude, as did the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, that granting an extension of those Walnut Ridge permits was not supported by facts of law. (On March 31, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended, on a 3-2 vote, to deny extensions to the Walnut Ridge conditional use permits.)

The complaint also asks the court to find the county board’s action is “arbitrary and capricious.” According to the plaintiffs, the county board’s decision failed to consider the negative impact of the proposed turbines, including, among other things, annoying and incessant noise, visual disturbances from flashing lights, turning blades and massive unsightly towers, shadow flicker, negative health affects, including sleep deprivation, and the impact to pets, livestock, birds and wildlife.

In their press release, the spokespersons described the plaintiffs as a very diverse group, representing individuals owning homes in close proximity to one or more of the proposed Walnut Ridge turbine towers, as well as farmers and landowners who expect their operations to be significantly harmed if the turbine towers are allowed to be built.

Each of the plaintiffs has made a financial commitment to support the cost of bringing this complaint to the courts, the spokespersons stated. For some of these property owners, the affected property represents their principal financial asset, and thus a lifetime of savings, the spokespersons claimed.

In some additional comments, spokesperson Steve Hamrick reiterated why this group of Bureau County residents has taken this legal action and what they want to accomplish.

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

On Thursday, Bureau County State’s Attorney Pat Herrmann, who will represent the defendants in the complaint, said defendants have 30 days to reply after a subpoena is served.

From Ontario

SHUT DOWN TURBINES IF THEY INTERFERE WITH FARMER'S GPS SYSTEMS

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

By David Meyer

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

MAPLETON TWP. — When township council here considered what comments to make to the province about conditions for permitting an industrial wind farm near Arthur, councillor Neil Driscoll said turbines should be shut down immediately if they interfere with GPS users.

At a special meeting on June 21 to consider possible conditions, Driscoll told council the wind industry should not be permitted to interfere with modern farming practices.

Councillor Mike Downey supported Driscoll’s statement, and soon, so did all other councillors.

They were working their way through a commenting document to set conditions for the province, although Mapleton’s was so big there were dozens of extra pages beyond what the province offered. The township is facing a request for NextEra Energy Canada’s Conestogo Wind Energy Centre Project.

The extra comments and requests for conditions were compiled by Chief Administrative Officer Patty Sinnamon from a number of sources, many from the United States, which has far more stringent rules than Ontario.

One of the suggestions was, “If any television, cell phone, internet or broadcast radio frequency interference is shown to be created by the Wind Energy Centre, NextEra shall use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate any problems on a case by case basis.”

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

Driscoll said in a later interview that GPS equipment “auto steers” farm machinery in fields. He said someone is in the tractor, but it is GPS satellite technology that runs it. It also determines the amounts of spraying a machine does.

If GPS is interfered with by a turbine, he said farmers are effectively forced to shut down their operation.

“It would lose track of where you were in the field,” he said. “It could throw the seeding off. You could lose combine rates of yield.”

The GPS works with satellite technology, and Driscoll said the technology on farms is similar to what people might have in their cars, but, “It’s just far more enhanced.”

He estimated over 75 per cent of farmers use “some type of GPS – in our spraying, in our tractors and combines. So what happens if my GPS does go down? It’s pretty hard to run without it now. We’ve become reliant on the system.”

Driscoll said satellites can give a reading of the strengths of a signal, and could tell if interference is coming from a wind turbine (that is something some wind energy companies acknowledge, and they have it included in contracts they sign with host farmers).

Driscoll also agreed with Mayor Bruce Whale, who noted all the land for the NextEra project is class one farmland.

“That’s the worst part,” Driscoll said. “This is class one farmland that can’t be replaced.”

In the past, the Ministry of Agriculture, through the provincial government, has tried to protect class one agricultural lands.

Sinnamon reminded council the county’s rural broadband project is due to come on line in September. She wondered how the township can determine if turbines are causing interference. Councillor Jim Curry said it is easy. “What was working is not.”

Sinnamon wondered about a shut down for cell phones.

Driscoll said, “If the cell phone is your lifeline … ”

Sinnamon asked how anyone can determine interference by a turbine.

Whale said, “Anyone who could do an analysis probably could … each provider has a way of measuring range.”

Driscoll said the satellite “can probably tell you what is interfering. TV providers can tell you if somebody is interfering.”

Curry said council should check other areas. “I’ve heard there have been problems.”

Whale said the township can determine what service is like before the arrival of turbines, and then afterwards.

Sinnamon said if the township insists there be no interference, it should set a deadline for how long the company will have to prove it does not interfere. She suggested five years.

Whale said council will have to set a length, and “We should know soon.”

Curry said residents hosting turbines “waive these issues.”

Other conditions

Council also went through numerous conditions to protect its roads from large and heavy machinery.

It insisted when NextEra has to dig under roads for electrical wires, it has to bore under paved roads, but it can dig up gravel roads. The elevations shall be approved by the township’s engineers.

As well, the township wants 18-inch culverts used where the road is dug for conduits.

Council wants also to be reimbursed for all inspection costs for the roads, prior to NextEra using them, and afterwards, with a limit of one year to determine settling. It wants the company to repair any damaged road base to a depth of 18 inches. Driscoll said there is a heritage road on part of the section NextEra will have to travel.

Public Works Director Larry Lynch said that road, Sideroad 17, will have to be brought back to original condition, including such things as tree canopy, and to its original narrow width.

Lynch said the township heritage committee probably won’t want it touched at all. “Once you affect the integrity, it isn’t a heritage road any more.”

Whale said the township will need a report on that issue.

“Let’s investigate. Confirm the identity – confirm what can and cannot happen.”

Driscoll said some road allowances are unopened in winter, and are used only by snowmobile clubs. He said he would be unwilling to allow the wind company to open those roads, and it could use access by snowmobile – if it has paid a trail fee.

Lynch said if the company, needs access, the township could always “open the road up – at a cost.”

Councillor Andy Knetsch wondered how the company could get emergency personnel to its turbines.

Whale said that will have to be part of its emergency plan.

Lynch said it is no different than Conestogo Lake, where people are responsible for their own access in winter.

Whale said to make sure that is in the agreement.

Council agreed there will likely be some disruption when the company brings in the turbine sections and the heavy cranes to build them. It insisted farmers know well in advance what days the company will be taking machinery on township roads.

Driscoll was unhappy about farmers being unable to use township roads for long periods. “If it still takes the whole day, it doesn’t help us,” he said.

Lynch said there could be breakdowns, and wondered how the township could deny use of the road if moving turbines takes longer than expected. “We have to be careful and show due diligence and not make it too onerous,” Lynch said. “What happens if they’re a day late? Does that mean they can’t come in the next day?”

On the other hand, he understood Driscoll’s point about interrupting busy farmers if they get a good day to work.

“It’s shouldn’t be a hardship on the landowner. I think that’s what councillor Driscoll is saying,” Lynch concluded.

When it came to shadow flicker, the township noted trees can be planted as a block of the tower’s shadow.

Curry said trees must be evergreen types. In the United States, some companies planted trees that lost leaves and those were useless blocking shadow flicker. When it came to completing the project, council insisted the company remove much of the turbine’s concrete base. Council wants two metres of cement taken out, and that hole filled with topsoil so the land can be returned to farm.

The township is also going to be requiring letters of credit worth thousands of dollars to guarantee that all the liabilities of NextEra are covered.

That includes the scrap metal. It wants NextEra to bring a report to council on the value of scrap metal every three years. In many cases, the farmers can claim the scrap metal once the turbines have finished their contracts.

When it came to insurance for turbines in case of accident, Knetsch wanted to increase it from $500,000 per turbine to $1-million.

Driscoll said there could be “millions in environmental degradation. How far is that going to go? Suppose it blows up and spreads over two acres?”

Acting Building Inspector David Kopp said he wants the company to send the township proof of insurance every year it operates.

Whale said there should also be “spill insurance.” He said the problem is the township does not know what is in the landowner agreement.”

Sinnamon said that the U.S. agreements are becoming far more detailed as people there gain experience with turbines.

Knetsch said the township could use an actuary to determine what the costs might be down the road. He was concerned with “an environmental disaster. Who’s going to pay for that?”

Driscoll said council must be wary because the company is unlikely to pay for costs down the road it has not agreed in advance. “I don’t believe you’ll get it from them later.”

Council agreed it will ask for property values to be guaranteed within 5km of the turbines. Sinnamon said NextEra has stated there is no drop off in property values, but in the U.S. the company was asked to guarantee property values.

She said the company has entered into agreements on that in the U.S., “So they are [guaranteeing property values].”

Council’s debate on the issues lasted nearly four hours.

Afterwards, it also accepted a document from area residents who have listed their own concerns about the turbines.

The township has a deadline of July 9 to comment to the province, and if it meets that deadline, it can also comment further.

LAWSUIT FILED BY RESIDENTS OF TOWN TARGETED BY WIND DEVELOPER

SOURCE: Forest Voice, March 24, 2011

A controversial western Wisconsin wind energy project has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens group on February 9, 2011, and by decisive action by a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election of the former town board members who had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

After taking office following a recall election on February 15, 2011, the newly elected town board members for the Town of Forest, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, voted to rescind a controversial wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer, in a decisive vote on March 17, 2011. As a result, the project, which was proposed by a private wind energy developer named Emerging Energies, LLC, is now under fire and may be stopped.

The federal lawsuit was filed on February 9, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, by a Western Wisconsin citizens group named Forest Voice, LLC, and several individual citizens, against the Town of Forest, its former town board members, and Emerging Energies, LLC.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by attorneys Glenn M. Stoddard and Patricia Keahna, of Stoddard Law Office. The suit alleges that the Town of Forest, its former board members, Roger Swanepoel, Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau, and Emerging Energies, LLC, acted in concert to intentionally violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, by approving two different wind energy development agreements during 2008 and 2010.

According to Attorney Glenn Stoddard, “[t]he suit alleges that the former town board members had conflicts of interest and illegal and secretive dealings with Emerging Energies, LLC, in order to reach the agreements, which provide substantial financial benefits only to property owners who support the proposed wind energy project and who own residences within a half mile of the proposed wind turbines.” The lawsuit seeks to nullify the 2008 and 2010 agreements, halt the proposed wind energy project, and other relief.

Forest Voice, LLC is a citizens group comprised of individual landowners, and Town of Forest property owners, whose goal is to create community awareness about the realities of wind energy development.

The Town of Forest is located in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, approximately midway between Clear Lake and Glenwood City, Wisconsin. The group formed early in the fall of 2010 after its members learned that their 36-square mile community was targeted for a wind energy project consisting of 39, 500-foot tall wind towers.

According to Attorney Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were completely unaware that the former the town board members, who lost a special recall election on February 15, 2011, had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on August 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project. The landowners who signed contractual leases to allow wind turbines on their properties are prohibited contractually from talking about the leases and the proposed project, so the project was kept secret for some time.

That the first public notice of the controversial wind energy project to the broader community arrived in the form of a postcard which was mailed to each Town of Forest property owner with postage paid out of Town funds, announcing the project and a planned bus trip to Glenmore, Wisconsin, to view the “Shirley Project”–which was represented as having “the same wind turbines that are coming to Forest, WI.” No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period marked by secretive deliberations between the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC.

Because the Town of Forest is a densely populated rural area consisting of farms, hobby farms, and small acreage homesteads, many non-participating property owners believe the utility-scale wind turbine project is inappropriate for their township, because of unacceptable setback and noise allowances from non-participating residences in the two agreements. The plaintiffs in the case allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them. Moreover, the process that led to the two agreements, and the substance of the agreements, allegedly violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

Attorney Stoddard said, “[t]he plaintiffs are concerned that installation of the proposed project would unfairly stigmatize and devalue their properties and interfere with the quiet, rural quality of life they currently enjoy. Residents who had no knowledge of the size and scope of the project, and no input into the development are unwilling to be so adversely affected by the health and safety issues associated with the proposed project, which includes 39 massive wind turbines.”

Most disturbing to the plaintiffs and other non-participating residents were the contents of open records which laid out the secretive dealings between attorneys for the Town and the developer and the former town board members.

The agreement of August 12, 2010, superseded an earlier agreement of April 2008. Former Town Chairman, Roger Swanepoel, who allegedly contracted with Emerging Energies, LLC for two wind turbines on his property, signed the 2008 agreement. When conflicts of interest centering on financial gain became apparent between all members of the former Town board, a scheme was allegedly devised to circumvent and replace the 2008 agreement with a new agreement to allow development of the proposed wind energy project. Evidence of corruption and collusion and “creative” measures to remedy conflicts of interests surfaced in over 83 pages of documents obtained through public records requests by Town of Forest residents.

According to Attorney Stoddard, “Town of Forest meeting minutes revealed inconsistencies in communications between the former town board members and the town plan commission, and failure to follow agenda rules. Former Town Chairman Roger Swanepoel recused himself from voting on and signing the 2010 agreement, but it was approved and signed by former town supervisors Carlton Cress and Douglas Karau. Since both Cress and Karau stand to receive substantial financial gains under the 2010 agreement, they allegedly had serious and illegal conflicts of interest and should not have voted on or approved the agreement.”

Bill Rakocy of Emerging EnergiesIn October 2010, Forest Voice requested that the Town board rescind the allegedly illegal 2010 agreement, signed on August 12, 2010 with Emerging Energies, LLC and Bill Rakocy, the owner of Emerging Energies, of Hubertus, Wisconsin.

On December 2, 2010, recall petitions were served on the Town of Forest town clerk with petitions containing 93 signatures, above the 50 that was required of the electorate. The process culminated in the recall election held on February 15, 2011. All three town board members were recalled and a new town board was elected.

On March 17, 2011, the new Town board voted to rescind the August 12, 2010 wind energy development agreement and took other action to rescind and nullify other wind energy project approvals that had been made hastily by the former town board members at about the time of the recall election.

Attorney Stoddard said: “The recent actions by the new Town board are a welcome development but the federal lawsuit against the town, the former town board members and Emerging Energies, LLC is likely to be continued, since the company has apparently threatened the new Town board with legal action and has taken an aggressive stance. As a result, we are expecting the company to try to push ahead with the wind energy project despite the recall, the rescission and the federal lawsuit.”

Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice, LLC, said: “What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed. Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety, and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be. We believe the people who have reported they are suffering from the effects of the Blue Sky/Green Field wind project in the Fond du Lac area of Wisconsin, as well as countless similar stories throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Something must be done to make more people aware of the negative consequences of industrial wind energy to people, animals, and ecosystems. To force non-participating residents to live inside a wind factory on a scale unheard of in any other type of energy producing resource is a violation of our constitutional rights. And the funding to developers for these projects with taxpayer dollars for an inefficient and parasitic form of renewable energy is unacceptable. The statement we continually hear that ‘wind energy is green, clean, and renewable’ is nothing more than deception.”

Is this St. Croix County's Future? Fond du Lac County home in the Invenergy wind projectLOCAL COMMUNITES COMING [TOGETHER] AGAINST WIND FARMS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, Pierce County Herald www.piercecountyherald.com

February 24, 2011 By: Chris Hamble - Hudson Star-Observer and Jeff Holmquist -

The question of wind turbine location has roiled communities in St. Croix County. The township board of Forest was recently recalled in the Feb. 15 election and the Town of Troy has passed a moratorium on wind farm development.

At its board meeting Thursday, Feb. 10, the town of Troy passed a resolution putting a temporary moratorium in place for the development of wind-energy turbines in and around the town.

A four-man committee was organized by town chair Ray Knapp to look into the “what and how” of possible turbine energy generators and to make an ordinance for the town regarding the building, regulation and usage of possible turbines in the future.

Currently, there is talk at the state capital that the new administration is looking to make strict regulations and standards regarding wind turbine usage, visibility and setbacks. According to Knapp, in a situation such as this, the town may not be “more strict” with its regulations than the state.

Since the state has yet to fully develop a plan, it was suggested that the town issue a moratorium on the building of wind turbines, even though there is currently no plan to build any. The board hopes to keep prospectors and developers from looking into the possibility of constructing turbines until the town can get a hard ordinance on the books. This move was also suggested by the Wisconsin Towns Association.

The moratorium unanimously passed, and is effective until Sept. 26.

“This temporary stay in wind permits will give us time to come up with something right for the town,” said Knapp.

In addition to the moratorium, Knapp also reported that under the current project timeline, the committee would like to draft a possible town ordinance by the regularly scheduled July board meeting, and also compile a list of possible sites for developers to inspect.

_________________________________________________________

The ongoing wind farm controversy has blown the sitting Town of Forest board out of office.

A recall election on Tuesday, Feb. 15, held in conjunction with the Wisconsin primary, went to the three challengers in the contest.

For the chairman position, Jamie Junker gathered 194 votes and incumbent Roger Swanepoel had 123 votes.

For the position of supervisor, challengers Rick Steinberger (207 votes) and Patrick Scepurek (185 votes) were elected. Incumbents Carlton Cress (123 votes) and Douglas Karau (113 votes) were voted out of office.

The recall election was the result of a group of Town of Forest residents who circulated a petition to remove the current board. The petition included the signatures of 93 town residents. A total of 50 signatures was required for a recall election to be conducted.

The group’s main issue with the current board was their approval of a wind project proposed by Emerging Energies LLC, which calls for some 39 turbines to be installed on parcels scattered throughout the township.

Opponents of the plan claim the proposal was approved without appropriate notice and participation from the public.

“The recall election pretty much speaks for itself,” said Junker following his successful run for the chairman post. “The Forest residents have concluded through simply reading a vast number of documents that a number of legal irregularities have taken place. These irregularities are easily understood by anyone that took the time to read the public documents to know what happened in Forest. With great confidence that they had the legal proof, the residents of Forest moved for the rare recall of its officials from office, and to nobody’s surprise they won.”

Junker said the town residents “were never told of the project details until the evening the agreement was actually approved, never knowing of the placement, size, or number at any point during what has repeatedly been said was a public process.”

The towns’ plan commission was also never publicly told of the details, Junker said, yet the formal agreement says the plan commission recommended the agreement.

“Clearly the residents of Forest feel that the previous town board, proven through the records, tried to pull the wool over the residents’ eyes and we’re finding out it didn’t work,” he said.

Junker pledged that the new town board will do “everything legally possible” to stop the wind turbine project now that they’re in office.

He said the chances of the project being stopped are good.

In a phone interview, Steinberger said he was pleased with the results of the recall.

“It was just what I had hoped for,” he said.

Steinberger said he is ready to take on the job of town supervisor and he promised to “represent the people.”

“I want to keep the process open and honest,” he said.

Scepurek was pleased with the outcome as well.

“The citizens of the township decided enough is enough,” he said.

He noted that almost all of the registered voters in the town cast a ballot in the recall, which was an encouraging sign.

“People are waking up and taking notice,” Scepurek said. “People have to start being informed and make sure that things don’t happen under the radar.”

Outgoing supervisor Cress said he didn’t have much to say in the wake of his recall, other than to say he was frustrated by the single-issue focus of the campaign to kick the board out.

“It was unfortunate that it came down to a wind turbine issue and not what it takes to run a township,” he said.

Swanepoel and Karau did not return phone calls to get their reaction to the results of the election.



Bill Rakocy, founder of Emerging Energies, is named in the lawsuitFOREST RESIDENTS FILE SUIT AGAINST TOWN OFFICIALS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com

February 17, 2011

By Kevin Murphy,

Three Town of Forest Board supervisors subject to a recall election are defendants in a federal lawsuit alleging their secret agreement of a wind farm developer violated some property owners’ constitutional rights.

According to the suit filed Feb. 9 in Madison:

A group of town residents calling themselves “Forest Voice” alleged board supervisors Roger Swanepoel, Douglas Karau and Carl Cress approved an agreement with Emerging Energies of Wisconsin in April 2008 without notifying affected property owners or holding a public hearing.

In the plan, not announced publically until Aug. 12, 2010, EE sought town approval to construct 39 wind towers of up to 500 feet tall. According to “Forest Voice,” EE’s turbines would create noise and “shadow flicker” up to one-half mile away when operating, diminishing the value of use of the affected properties.

Swanepoel, Karau and Cress also had a conflict of interest in representing the town because each of them or a family member could obtain annual financial payments from EE because they would host or were considering hosting a wind turbine on their property, the lawsuit alleges.

Calls to Swanepoel’s and Karau’s residences Monday seeking comment on the allegations weren’t returned before deadline. Cress said he had no comment Monday on the suit’s allegations.

The agreement approved in April 2008 with EE was reached through a “walking quorum” of phone calls, e-mails and personal conversations in apparent violation of state open meeting laws, the lawsuit claims. The agreement grants annual payments to property owners including Swanepoel, Karau and Cress, living within one-half mile of a wind turbine.

While the agreement creates a “financially favored” class of persons within the town who would benefit from annual payments, it also creates a “financially disfavored” class in terms of safety, quality of life, use of property and property values, the lawsuit claims. Those residents would all be adversely affected by EE’s proposed wind energy project, “Forest Voice” members claim.

Alleged “financially disfavored” residents include:

• Property owners not selected by EE to host a wind turbine but living within one-half mile of one owned by another individual:

• Persons living more than one-half mile from a proposed wind turbine location:

• Persons owning non-occupied residents within one-half mile of a turbine:

• Those living within one-half mile of a turbine who opposed the wind energy project.

“Forest Voice” members including Judi Beestman, Bill Dyer, Jeff Erickson, Scott Voeltz and Brenda and Robert Salseg, are town residents opposed to the EE project on safety and quality of life issues. The board failed to tell the Salsegs about the proposed agreement when approving the Salseg’s request for a trailer home on property within one-quarter mile of a proposed turbine.

The “Forest Voice” residents aren’t eligible for annual payments under the agreement because either the property they own isn’t within one-half mile of a proposed turbine or their property is within a half-mile of a turbine on land owned by someone else.

This “differential selective treatment” of residents in the 2008 agreement is not only “patently arbitrary and irrationally discriminatory, with no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose,” according to the suit, it’s also designed to financially reward participating property owners including Swanepoel, Cress and Karau or their families.

By 2010, the town’s attorney became concerned about the conflict of interest Cress and Swanepoel created by signing the agreement, especially Swanepoel, according to the suit. To disguise and remedy Swanepoel’s conflict, the suit alleges, attorneys for the town and EE and EE co-founder, William Rakocy, devised an illegal “walking quorum” which violated open meeting laws but where the town board would adopt a new agreement without Swanepoel voting.

The 2010 agreement was also developed though secret negotiations between board members and EE and approved without holding a public hearing, “Forest Voice” alleges.

The agreement creates annual payments of $4,000 per megawatt, up to 50 megawatts, to be divided equally among the town, St. Croix County and each property owner of an occupied residence within one-half mile of turbine on their property.

Calls to the attorney for Forest Voice wasn’t returned before deadline.

Attempts to contact Rakocy on Monday weren’t succesful.

The suit claims the board’s approving the 2008 and 2010 agreements without holding a public hearing and completed for their financial reward violated the due process and equal protection rights of the members of “Forest Voice.”

The suit seeks unspecified damages from the town, the three board members and EE.

The suit also seeks a permanent injuction against constructing the EE wind energy project.



Wind turbines tower above a Wisconsin farm

EXPERT WARNS 'PROVINCE OUGHT NOT TO PROCEED' WITH INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: The Windsor Star, www.windsorstar.com

February 17, 2011

By Gary Rennie,

CHATHAM-KENT, Ont. — In a case that’s put Ontario’s Green Energy Act on trial drawing expert witnesses from around the world, a prominent Canadian physician testified Wednesday that construction of new wind turbines should be put on hold until appropriate medical studies are done to ensure the safety of nearby residents.

“The province ought not to proceed with the development of industrial wind turbines any further,” said Dr. Robert McMurtry, a past dean of the medical school at the University of Western Ontario and a former assistant deputy minister of health for the federal government.

“There is a lot of suffering,” McMurtry said. “We need to understand why.”

McMurtry was a witness for Chatham-Kent residents trying to overturn ministry of environment approval for Suncor’s proposed Kent Breeze wind farm.

Using audio and video teleconferencing, expert witnesses from England, New Zealand and the U.S. have already weighed in on the complex science of industrial noise and how humans perceive and react to it.

Suncor and environment ministry lawyers have a long list of experts of their own to call in the weeks ahead. Final arguments to the two-member Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal panel aren’t expected to be made until April.

Considered the key witness for sceptics of the safety of turbines as currently regulated in Ontario, McMurtry spoke of his experiences talking to more than 40 people who have lived close to the 120-metre high towers and whirling blades. They complain of prolonged sleep deprivation, stress, headaches, extreme fatigue, and high blood pressure, he said.

Leaving their homes to stay with relatives or in motels provides relief from the symptoms, McMurtry said. “The only cure is to move.”

McMurtry was critical of both Ontario’s noise standard for wind turbines and the 550 metre setback from turbine locations to homes in the regulations to the 2009 Green Energy Act. “I do not have confidence in those guidelines.”

The setback is a key issue. If setbacks of 1,500 metres or more – which some experts call for – had been established, development of wind turbines in heavily populated Essex County and many other southern Ontario communities would have been impossible.

It’s not just a question of how loud wind turbines may be, it’s the repetitive, pulsating nature of the “whoosh, whoosh” sound that appears to annoy some people, McMurtry said.

An analogy used by other experts in the hearing is the drip of a leaky faucet, which while not loud, can be annoyingly disruptive to sleep.

Low frequency noise and inaudible, infrasound may also contribute to the distress of those living close to turbines, said McMurtry. He conceded a lack of research proving a definitive cause and effect, but at the same time, said no research proving the safety of turbines at typical setbacks exists either.

“More likely than not, people living near industrial wind turbines are suffering adverse health affects,” McMurtry said. Governments should act in precautionary way to protect the health of residents until peer-reviewed research provides greater certainty about the kinds of regulations needed for wind development, he said.

McMurtry got interested in wind turbines after buying a cottage in Prince Edward County in 2007 with enough land to potentially put up one of his own. But after researching the issue further, he became alarmed at the weak scientific basis for claims of the safety of wind turbines.

He tried unsuccessfully to raise his concerns with several Liberal cabinet ministers, getting no response.

Prince Edward County has also been a popular choice of location for several large wind projects although none have yet been built. McMurtry has been prominent in a local citizens’ group in his community questioning wind turbine development.

A past special advisor to a Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, he has immersed himself in recent years on the scientific research around the world on the health issues raised by wind turbines.