Entries in wind farm lawsuit (39)
1/13/10 Feeling lucky that you don't live in a wind farm? If you live in rural Wisconsin, hang onto that feeling for as long as you can.
Fond du Lac Reporter
January 13 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
My daughter recently had a basketball tournament in Lomira.
On our way home from the tournament, we drove through Brownsville and observed the wind turbines located there. My daughter, her teammate and I all had the same reaction — thank goodness we didn’t have those wind turbines in our backyard.
Simply stated, they are very ugly. What an eyesore! I wondered why anyone would agree to have those monstrosities erected on their property. So I did a little research about wind turbines and their impact on the residents and communities where they were built.
I found that many of the residents who lived near the turbines complained about the noise, comparing it to living next to a major airport. They also complained about fatigue, headaches, ringing in their ears, loss of balance and nausea.
I also discovered that residents who had tried to sell their property to get away from the turbines were either unable to do so because prospective buyers immediately became disinterested upon finding out about the turbines, or residents had to sell their homes well below fair market value.
I wondered what types of high-pressure “tactics” the wind turbine company had to use in order to convince residents that the wind turbines were a good idea without informing residents about the negative effects of the turbines.
I wondered if the company’s executives promoting wind turbine construction would agree to having one constructed on their own property. I doubt it.
I know that after researching this issue, I would absolutely oppose construction of any wind turbines in my community. My heart goes out to the innocent victims who have had their lives so negatively impacted by their greedy and selfish neighbors.
Tammy L. Kroetz
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The only thing we don’t agree with in this letter is the idea that hosting landowners are driven only by greed and selfishness. There are a many reasons why a family might sign on with a developer. And developers talk a good game. Like any other salesman, their only objective is to make the sale.
Click on the images below to watch an interview with Wisconsin father and son dairy farmers who talk about their first hand experiences with wind developers, hosting a met tower on their land, and what the developer did to them after they changed their mind about hosting turbines in their land.
For those who have slower internet connection, a transcript of the interview can be read by clicking here.
“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”
That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost.
But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.
“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”
Wind Farm gets initial go-ahead, but PSC puts conditions on WE energies project.
By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register, portagedailyregister.com
January 11 2010
MADISON – The Glacier Hills Wind Park, which could be the largest in the state, will rise from the farm fields of eastern Columbia County, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decided Monday.
But the three-member commission called for We Energies to meet several conditions in building the 90-turbine wind farm, including a minimum of 1,250 feet of distance between the turbines and the buildings on nonparticipating property; limits on the noise generated by the turbines; and the possibility that people whose property is surrounded by the turbines might have their property bought out.
PSC staff will draft a detailed list of the conditions based on the discussion at Monday’s meeting, said PSC spokesman Timothy Le Monds. The commission is scheduled to vote on the details of the condition Jan. 20, Le Monds said.
We Energies plans to build 90 turbines, each as much as 400 feet high, on rented land covering a 17,300-acre footprint in the Columbia County towns of Randolph and Scott. It would be Wisconsin’s largest wind farm to date.
In voting unanimously to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity to allow construction of the 90-turbine wind farm, the commissioners acknowledged that not all people will be happy about their decision.
“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”
That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost. But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.
“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”
But commissioners agreed that the necessity of creating more energy from renewable resources such as wind – required of utilities by state law – must be weighed against the effect the turbines might have on people who live near them.
“I empathize,” said Commissioner Mark Meyer, “and I have a great deal of compassion for those who will experience the effects of wind turbines. I will not deny these effects. But I must balance all the interests.”
In doing so, the three commissioners offered numerous conditions that We Energies must meet in building the wind park.
One of the key conditions: a minimum 1,250-foot setback separating the turbines from the homes of people who did not lease their land for the turbines’ construction.
This almost certainly will mean that some of the 90 proposed turbines will have to be moved from their preferred location, or possibly be eliminated, commissioners said.
Commissioners discussed, at length, how such setback would be measured, with Callisto proposing that it start from the tip of a turbine’s blade at its maximum arc. The commissioners agreed, however, that it would be measured from roughly the center of a turbine to the center of a structure on land owned by nonparticipating landowners.
The commissioners also called for a noise limit of 50 decibels day and night during winter months and 50 decibels by day and 45 decibels by night during warmer months, because many people like to sleep with windows open on warm nights.
Brian Manthey, spokesman for We Energies, said the company was encouraged by the decision and that it will work within the parameters set by the PSC.
The 1,250-foot setback might mean that some of the 90 preferred sites will not be used; the company will look at 28 alternate sites, Manthey said.
It’s possible there could be fewer than 90 turbines. If the number stays at 89 or more, it will be the largest in the state based on number of turbines.
The Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeast Fond du Lac County has 88 turbines and produces 145 megawatts of electricity. The project description says Glacier is projected to produce 207 megawatts.
“Obviously, we’re still going to have a pretty good-sized wind farm,” he said.
He said despite the PSC’s questions, he thought the commission was positive about the project.
“They have quite a job to take in all the different aspects of a project of this magnitude,” he said.
Other conditions that We Energies must meet will include:
• A provision allowing for a buyout of some nonparticipating landowners who are surrounded by turbines.
• Measures to deal with shadow flicker for people who experience problems with it.
• A local committee to be appointed to address concerns and complaints related to the wind farm, though We Energies also would have to be prepared to address such complaints directly.
• Agreements with local emergency responders regarding landing spots for airborne emergency vehicles, such as helicopter ambulances.
• Further study, paid for partly by We Energies, of the effects of wind turbines on flying species such as bats and birds.
The commission, however, rejected a proposal from the village of Friesland that We Energies should pay the village a fee to compensate for property value losses stemming from turbines within 1.5 miles of the village.
It also rejected a proposal that, once the wind farm is up and running, We Energies should be required to shut down a coal-burning electric plant.
The target year for the turbines becoming operational is 2012.
Daily Register Editor Jason Maddux contributed to this story.
"If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."
-Clean Wisconsin's Glacier Hills project post hearing brief
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: If We Energies does not shut down a coal burning plant, Clean Wisconsin testitifed there will be no reduction in CO2 /green house gasses from this project. [SOURCE]
"Hot Air on Wind Energy: Don't expect wind power to replace coal as the nation's main source of electric power, whatever Obama's interior secretary said."
CLICK HERE to read all of what FactCheck.org has to say about wind energy and coal. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
No matter how you may feel about the issue of climate change, there is one point few will argue: air pollution is a serious problem. How will the the Glacier Hills project help?
The 'greater good' of building our industrial scale wind farms, such as the one the PSC has approved in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants. This is the 'greater good' that residents are being asked to make sacrifices for.
On the surface it seems pretty logical and simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.
The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate. In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.
The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.
Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.
The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?
Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.
QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."
Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state. And they clearly lay out the reasons why.
QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."
QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."
QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."
There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.
By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.
The complete text of the Clean Wisconsin post hearing brief can be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and the Glacier Hills docket docket number 6630-CE-302
Better Plan continues with our look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Glacier Hills Wind Farm proposed for the Towns of Randolph and Scott in Columbia county.
Click on the icon below to listen to a Minnesota Public Radio report on the use of eminent domain to force a wind farm onto a community that doesn't want it. (Text article appears below)
New Ulm Bullying its way to Wind Energy, Landowners say
Think it can't happen in Wisconsin?
On Page 29 of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Glacier Hils wind farm prepared by the Public Service Commission we read:
WEPCO needs long-term easements for the land used by the wind turbines, access roads, and collector circuits. WEPCO has stated it intends to obtain easements from willing landowners. However, WEPCO could use the power of eminent domain if it is granted a CPCN by the Commission.
Let’s stop right there:
What is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use.
The PSC is now taking comments on the Glacier Hills EIS. If you'd like to comment on the impact of 90 wind turbines on residents forced to live with the proposed 1000 foot setbacks, CLICK HERE
To review the entire docket for this project CLICK HERE and enter docket number 6630-CE-302.
New Ulm 'bullying' its way to wind energy, landowners say
by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio
[Click here to read at source]
Lafayette, Minn. — For the first time in Minnesota, the powerful government tool known as eminent domain could be used to take property rights in a wind energy project.
There's been a growing public backlash against wind energy; complaints about noise, visual pollution and even bird kills.
The city of New Ulm, as other cities around Minnesota have, wants to put up five wind turbines as a power source. The proposal has angered a group of landowners just across the Minnesota River from the southern Minnesota city.
Among them is Jeff Franta. The proposed site is surrounded by fields of corn and soybeans. He said most landowners here opposed the project from the start.
"We feel like that it will very likely grow into something a lot larger than just a few turbines," he said.
Franta said it is wasteful to convert even small amounts of highly-productive farmland to wind turbine sites, but that's not all that's fueling the opposition. The farmers are also upset with how New Ulm has pursued the project.
Franta's neighbor, Clete Goblirsch, said the city is bullying landowners. He said opposition to the project is so strong there's no way it could be built under normal circumstances. Goblirsch said the city is threatening to use brute force.
"It's eminent domain. The power of eminent domain," he said.
Most people think of eminent domain as government taking ownership of private land for a public project. That apparently will not happen here. The city has already gotten access to the land it needs from several farmers.
Those landowners aren't talking.
But eminent domain can be used to seize something other than land.
In this case, Goblirsch said the government can also use it to acquire wind rights -- the right to use the wind on hundreds of acres owned by Goblirsch and other farmers.
"If outsiders tell you that's it's a money issue, it's not a money issue," Goblirsch said. "It's who's got the power over us, and the people with eminent domain got the power."
Before New Ulm can build turbines, the city is required to obtain the wind rights on nearby farmland. The farmers would still own the land, but would lose some control. For example, they couldn't build their own wind turbines if they wanted to.
"The issue of controlling wind rights is the stumbling block," said Hugh Nierengarten, a New Ulm City Attorney.
He said the city needs to lock in a source of power, and developing wind energy is the right way to do it.
"How do we undertake the acquisition of the necessary wind rights in order to build and operate the five wind turbines that we propose for Nicollet County," he said.
Nierengarten said the state requires wind farms to obtain the right to winds a certain distance from each turbine. That's to insure the machines are spaced far enough apart to have sufficient wind to operate efficiently. He said, even though the city is offering twice what he calls the going rate for wind rights, landowners have been reluctant to sign.
"We've already got approximately 55 percent of the area we need under control via leases with affected landowners that we negotiated over a year ago," Nierengarten said. "And there remain about 235 acres of wind rights that we have not yet secured control of."
Nierengarten said the city may use eminent domain to get those rights, although he calls it a last resort. That threat really irks landowners like Clete Goblirsch. He said it's a case of government trampling on individual rights.
"Taking your freedom of deciding what you want to do with your land," he said.
The entire wind industry may have a stake in this dispute about a relatively small wind project. A report from the state Energy Security Office predicts the use of eminent domain could have "severe adverse consequences" on other wind projects.
The report says the public may be less willing to even consider wind projects knowing they could lead to forcible loss of land or wind rights.
- Morning Edition, 10/14/2009, 7:25 a.m.
10/14/09 Almost two years later, Wisconsin wind farm residents still having trouble living with the 1000 foot setback. PSC says they weren't the ones who said 1000 feet was safe. Fond du Lac County Health department officer urges state to conduct epidemiological study.
Click on the image above to see photos of Wisconsin windfarm homes taken by Gerry Meyer, who is a resident of the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties. The PSC-approved setback from no- participating homes in Wisconsin wind farms is 1,000 feet.
Where did the 1,000-foot setback come from?
The PSC says they didn't come up with that number.
If they didn't, who did?
And who decided it was safe?
Wind turbines generate health, farming concerns
Farm Country September 30-October 6, 2009
By Judy Brown
Johnsburg—Allen Hass, an eastern Fond du Lac County grain farmer, agreed to host three wind turbines when the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm was developed about three years ago.
With 88 turbines producing 145 megawatts of electricity for WE Energies, Blue Sky Green Field is Wisconsin’s largest wind farm. Utilities are under a state mandate to provide 10 percent of their power from renewable-energy sources by 2015.
Yet Hass, 55 is feeling something similar to buyers remorse. “We were told we could farm up to the base of the turbine.” Hass said. “Now I have three too many.”
(Click on the image below to see a news story which shows what the wind company did to Al Hass's land.)
Hass is concerned about how the ground near the turbine was left after construction. Topsoil wasn’t replaced to his satisfaction. Near the base of a 400-foot turbine, a layer of small stone was left that damages his combine’s head.
Beyond that the soil at a radius at about 75 feet from the turbine’s base is less productive than it once was, he said.
On an early September day, that part of the cornfield yielded nubbins of cobs. The rest of the stalks stood at least two feet taller than those surrounding the turbine.
Hass complained to WE Energies in Milwaukee which operates the wind farm. He hired a lawyer and has filed a lawsuit in an effort to recover normal use of the land surrounded the three wind turbines.
He receives $5200 a year, for each of the three turbines on his farm.
Under the standard contract with developers, landowners are prohibited from talking negatively about the wind farm. Otherwise, Hass said he believes there would be more public complaints from farmers who regret allowing turbines on their land.
Other farmers complain about buried cables that transport electricity to the grid, while others worry about the potential effect of stray voltage on dairy cattle. For many fields, aerial spraying is no longer and option.
Others are concerned about health issues they say are related to the wind turbines.
Brian Manthey, WE Energies spokesman, said that since Blue Sky Green Field was built, the utility has received numerous calls from people who want turbines on their property.
“We get more calls like that than people who are upset with the wind turbines,” he said.
He wasn’t aware of any litigation the company was involved in, although there were some out-of-court settlements when turbines were sited too close to houses, he said.
Manthey said some people have expressed concern about low-frequency sounds emitted by the turbines.
“It’s another case of whether there’s really an issue there or not. We have requirements as to how many decibels a wind turbine can produce,” he said.
Irv Selk, a member of the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, was among those who fought for an ordinance in that county to regulate wind farms. He said the 1,000 foot setback allowed in the Blue Sky Green Field wind farm isn’t enough. He favors a minimum of 1800 feet.
A survey of residents in the Johnsburg area living within a half-mile of wind turbines concluded that 30 percent of respondents were awakened at least once a week because of sound from the wind turbines, Selk said.
There is no scientific basis for the 50- decibel setback, Selk said. “One thousand feet is unquestionably too close to people’ houses.”
Selk, 65, said many residents have problems trying to describe their health symptoms.
“They are more subtle,” he said. “It’s almost easy to dismiss that as you as you are getting old. Some people are more sensitive.”
Teresa Weidermann-Smith, a spokeswoman for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, said the 1000 foot setback is not a PSC requirement.
For each of the major wind projects the PSC authorized, a requirement already existed at the local level that specified the 1000-foot setback, she said in an e-mail.
The project was laid out by the developer on that basis.
In none of those cases did the PSC specify the setback, rather it authorized the project to be constructed (more or less) as it was designed and the 1000 foot setback was a design criterion,” Weidemann-Smith said.
The biggest complaints associated with the wind farm east of Lake Winnebago have been about TV reception and shadow flicker, Manthey said.
He said WE Energies has dealt with a couple of dozen residents individually to fiz the TV reception either by provided satellite service to obtain Green Bay channels or by adjusting individual antennas.
For those who complain about shadow flicker when the turbine is in line with the sun and the house, the utility hires specialists who recommend blinds or some other remedy.
In the southern part of Fond du Lac County, Ralph Mittlestadt of Oakfield grows more than 1000 acres of corn, soybeans, alfalfa and other crops on his dairy farm. His land is in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties.
This year he expects to take an $8,000 loss because of the inability to obtain aerial spraying to combat fungus, corn rootworm and plant diseases.
“We were told by the utility that they would have enough room to fly,” Mittelstadt said. “But they plunked them right at the end of the runways.”
A spraying service formerly used the farm as a staging area, but since the wind farm was construction that has stopped,” he said.
Mittelstadt understands why pilots don’t want to fly in the area.
“They don’t light every tower, which is something I don’t understand, because the (Federal Aviation Administration) requires every turbine to be lit if higher than 100 feet,” Mittlestadt said.
Helicopters are also subject to the wind coming off the blades, he said.
Spraying crops with ground machinery also becomes problematic, he said.
“Crop sprayers may get around to it in four to five days, and by that time it’s too late,” MIttelstadt said.
Spraying corn with fungicides in the past has garnered Mittelstadt 15 to 30 bushels more per acre, he said.
He doesn’t have any wind turbines on his land although he hosted a test windmill. “We found out it wasn’t financially feasible” he said.
Landowners receive $5,200 per year per turbine in the Forward Wind Energy wind farm.
Mittlestadt said that when the turbines were being built he believed about half of the people favored them and half were against the project.
“I think now it’s less,” he said. “A lot of people who put them p on their land wouldn’t do it again.”
Mittelstadt said he also has a problem with the noise produced by the wind turbines.
“It sounds like a jet engine at times with a woof every time the blade moves. At night, it’s worse.
However, he didn’t say his sleep was interrupted by the turbines.
“I’m tired. I farm,” Mittlestadt said.
Click to see an interview with Ralph Mittlestadt and his son Kevin as they speak about living in the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm
The configuration of turbines in Forward Wind Energy’s wind farm in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties led Flight for Life, which operates a helicopter service, to send out a memo last year saying that accident victims have to be transported to pre-determined sites away from the wind farm instead of having the helicopter fly directly to the scene of an accident.
Diane Cappozzo, Fond du Lac County health officer, said her office has received complaints from a bout a half dozen people who live within the three wind farms in the county.
She said sleep disturbances are the top complaint. Many of the concerns are hard to document, she said, granting that for those affected it’s an issue because of the noise and vibrations from the wind turbines.
“For some people, it started as soon as the turbines started turning,” she said.
The county has forwarded concerns to the state epidemiologist.
“An epidemiological study will tell us if people here have more issues than just the general population,” Cappozzo said, “With wind turbines, the issues are very real for the individual making the complaints.”
The long-term impact of how residents react to wind farms is still unknown, she said.
“If the state is going to be involved in expanding wind farms, maybe this is something they should be aware of,” Capezzo said.
Gerry Meyer, of rural Brownsville has taken 1,600 pictures and written a diary since the Forward Wind Energy wind farm was established. The dairy can be accessed [by clicking here]
“I was neutral when it started,” Meyer said, “ didn’t help the people who were fighting it. I trusted the town board and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin that they would do the right thing.”
With several wind turbines surrounding his 6-acre property, Meyer and his wife Cheryl, find their quality of life diminished and report reactions such as loss of sleep from wind turbine noise.
“My wife has ringing in her ears, and one night at choir she was asked why she can’t get the pitch right,” Meyer said.
Low-pitched sounds may account for their sleep disorders, ringing in the ears and crackling noises they hear, he said. Once they leave their property their symptoms subside about three days later.
Meyer said he’s gained 37 pounds since the turbines were built.
“I was told my cortisol level was moderately high and that I should consult an endocrinologist,” Meyer said. “What I’m talking about is something new. I’m not about to blame the wind farm for pre-existing conditions.”
Meyer didn’t have a baseline cortisol number established before the wind farm was built.
“Almost every time I’ve heard from someone who has issues it’s mostly sleep deprivation and headaches,” Meyer said. He said he gets about two hours of sleep each night.
“We’re fortunate we have trees surrounding us to reduce the noise level,” he said.
(Click on the image below to see a video shot last winter by Invenergy wind farm resident Gerry Meyer. The video shows the turbines that are closest to his home. The second video shows shadow flicker affecting several homes in his community)
Nina Pierpont, a New York pediatrician, wrote a study in which she describes about a dozen health issues – such as sleep deprivation, anxiety and loss of motivation—as “wind turbine syndrome.”
Critics point out that the study involved 38 people, too few to draw conclusions about wind farms.
Others who support Pierpont’s conclusions say they experienced those same symptoms and were glad to see a description identified.
Curt Kindschuh, a resident near the Forward Wind Energy wind farm in southern Fond du Lac County, led efforts to keep wind turbines from being sited close to Horicon Marsh, which has hundreds of species of birds flying by on a regular basis.
“I personally know a lot of people who host a wind turbine who cannot speak out publicly about turbines,” Kindschuh said.
Some people express regret to him that they agreed to host wind turbines; Kindschuh said.
“They can’t speak out publicly because the fear legal consequences from the company,” Kindschuh said.
Calls to the legal department at Invenergy Wind in Chicago, the developer of Forward Wind Energy, were not returned.
Kindschuh said the quality of life is spiraling downward for many people, especially those who have tried to sell their rural homes.
He knows of seven or eight people who have put their homes up for sale.
“None have received offers,” he said.
He agreed the state of Wisconsin should embark on an epidemiological study on the three wind farms in Fond du Lac County because it appears the study isn’t going to be conducted locally.
However, he noted that the wind farm issue which has split neighborhoods and families, has produced some positive residual effects.
“You meet your neighbors, even though longtime neighbors don’t talk to each other,” he said. “It’s forever split the community.”
(Click on the image below to watch an interview with Curt Kindschuh about the changes the wind farm has brought to his community)