Better Plan, Wisconsin

FROM MONTANA

SENATE COMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY ON EMINENT DOMAIN BILL

SOURCE Great Falls Tribune, www.greatfallstribune.com

March 4 2011

KARL PUCKETT,

“They’re cheapskates and a foreign company trying to beat these farmers and ranchers,” said Quick, who said he was representing 10 angry cattle ranchers — eight Republicans and two Democrats — who oppose HB198.

Energy development and private property rights sharply clashed Thursday in a hearing before the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee over a bill that would allow developers of “merchant” transmission lines to take private land for the public good.

Testimony over House Bill 198, which had its first hearing in the Senate after previously being approved in the House, lasted more than three hours, with dozens of residents and informational witnesses speaking.

If the bill is passed, “a person” issued a certificate under the Major Facilities Citing Act to build transmission lines or other large infrastructure would have the right to initiate condemnation proceedings.

A decision last year by a Glacier County District Court judge who ruled Toronto-based Tonbridge Power Inc. did not have the authority to use eminent domain prompted the legislation. Tonbridge is building the 215-mile Montana Alberta Tie Line merchant transmission line between Great Falls and Lethbridge, and the ruling stalled the project.

With a merchant line, the developer accepts the risk of the project rather than ratepayers of a public utility, such as NorthWestern Energy. Merchant line developers finance construction by selling shipping rights to the line. In Tonbridge’s case, it sold capacity to wind farm developers who want to ship electricity generated in Montana to bigger markets.

Landowners see the bill as a change in state law for a single company, as well as a general expansion of eminent domain powers.

“This is just a sweetheart deal for a Canadian company, and allows them to condemn Montana farmland for their own use — and that’s just absolutely wrong,” said Larry Martin, a farmer from Conrad who owns land in path of MATL.

John Alke, an attorney representing Tonbridge and Montana Dakota Utilities, said the Glacier County judge’s ruling was only the second time a Montana court applied an “entity specific” standard to prevent an out-of-state developer from using eminent domain.

The first time, in 1907, the Legislature quickly passed a law ensuring a company’s eminent domain powers in building Hauser Dam, he said.

What matters in determining whether an entity has eminent domain power, Alke said, is whether the project benefits the public, not the type of entity doing the work.

If HB198 does not pass, “my client, MATL, is in serious trouble,” Alke said.

“It is in the middle of construction,” he said. “It has crews in the field.”

Derek Moretz, with wind farm developer NaturEner, said his company’s proposed $700 million Rim Rock Wind Farm in Glacier and Toole counties will not be built if MATL is not completed. Any holdup in building the line also could delay the wind farm because federal production tax credits are set to expire in 2012, he said.

“Without this eminent domain tool, we’re just not going to be able to develop these linear infrastructure projects,” said Brett Doney, president of Great Falls Development Authority.

Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill doesn’t overhaul the current eminent domain law, but rather clarifies who can use it, including NorthWestern Energy.

Opponents of the bill disagreed with Peterson’s characterization, saying the Legislature never previously granted eminent domain power to a merchant line developer.

“This bill has a narrow motivation with broad affects,” said Beth Kaeding of Bozeman, past chair of the Northern Plains Resource Council.

Lyle Quick traveled to the hearing from Circle in Eastern Montana, where the Keystone XL pipeline is proposed, in order to testify. The line, being developed by TransCanada, would ship oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and Quick said HB198 could carry ramifications for that project as well.

“They’re cheapskates and a foreign company trying to beat these farmers and ranchers,” said Quick, who said he was representing 10 angry cattle ranchers — eight Republicans and two Democrats — who oppose HB198.

The Republicans are mad because “we are a party of property rights,” he said. The Democrats are mad because Gov. Brian Schweitzer, also a Democrat, supports the pipeline.

Some residents with land along MATL testified Thursday that they have been treated poorly by Tonbridge in negotiations. They urged lawmakers to vote against HB198.

Residents identifying themselves as tea party representatives, noting the state’s strong property rights protections, also spoke against the legislation. Union representatives spoke in favor of HB198, citing the jobs the projects would create.

Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, said supporters of both natural resource development and private property rights are “caught in a vice” as a result of the controversy.

Jim Peterson spoke in favor of the bill, saying shipping electricity out of state is in the public interest, and comparing it to farmers exporting wheat.

“It might not be in Montana, but it is public use just like food is public use,” he said.

Katrina Martin, who lives east of Dutton near the MATL line route, took exception to Jim Peterson’s export comparison during her testimony.

“Yes, I export my wheat,” Martin said. “But I do not get to condemn my neighbor’s property to do it.”

From Minnesota

BILLS INTRODUCED TO TOUGHEN WIND FARM REQUIREMENTS

The first proposal would prohibit wind turbines from being built within a half mile of a homeowner’s property line in a township where there are at least 3 1/2 homes per square mile.

SOURCE The Post-Bulletin, www.postbulletin.com 

March4,  2011 By

Heather J. Carlson,

ST. PAUL — Two lawmakers introduced a pair of bills yesterday that would place new restrictions on wind farm developments.

Reps. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, and Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, are backing the bills. The first proposal would prohibit wind turbines from being built within a half mile of a homeowner’s property line in a township where there are at least 3 1/2 homes per square mile. The second bill would no longer allow larger wind farms to qualify for Community-Based Energy Development (C-BED) status. That status allows wind companies to charge utilities premium rates for the energy they produce.

Kelly said he supports alternative energy, including wind, but there need to be more protections in place for landowners and utility ratepayers. In particular, he said he is concerned about large wind companies with limited ties to Minnesota getting the C-BED status, which allows them to build in areas that may not otherwise make economic sense.

“I really have a problem with the way that (C-BED status) has been hijacked. It’s been manipulated,” Kelly said.

From Ontario

ANTI-TURBINE ACTIVIST STANDS FIRM

“It seems that both bodies are trying to pass the buck. Meanwhile, there’s no justice for the people who are suffering physically from the presence of the turbines. There’s no justice.”

SOURCE: Better Farming, www.betterfarming.com

March 4, 2011

By Pat Currie,

An appeal of a Chatham-Kent wind power development continues despite this week’s defeat of efforts elsewhere in Ontario to overturn a provincial law governing distances between wind turbines and dwellings

Don’t count it as a legal watershed for battles over other wind farm proposals.

That’s a Chatham-Kent anti-turbine activist’s perspective of the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision this week to quash a challenge to provincial law that sets minimum distances between power-generating wind turbines and human habitations.

“All I see is one court passing the buck to another,” said Monica Elmes, speaking for the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group. The group is appealing approval of Suncor Energy’s proposed Kent Breeze wind farm project near Thamesville, about 20 kilometres northeast of Chatham, on the grounds it is a health hazard.

Suncor is proposing to place eight turbines on farmland to generate 20 megawatts of power.

The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) is hearing the appeal. It has been shifting proceedings back and forth between Chatham and Toronto since early February.

In the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision, issued Thursday, three judges wrote that they did not consider it the proper jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality or wisdom of the province in setting the 55-metre setback.

“I find it kinda funny – the MOE (Ministry of the Environment) lawyers at first said that Ontario Divisional Court was where the challenge should be heard and now the court is saying it should be heard by the ERT,” said Elmes.

“It seems that both bodies are trying to pass the buck. Meanwhile, there’s no justice for the people who are suffering physically from the presence of the turbines. There’s no justice.” BF

From Maine:

WIND FARM DEVELOPER OFFERS $120,000 TO SAVE TEACHING JOBS

“One of the PTA members looked at him — and this was in the middle of the budget stress they were having — and said, ‘Do you have $120,000?’” he said.

“Tom wasn’t able to say yes or no at that point, but we thought about it and we’d be happy to help out, basically, if we can go forward with our wind project for Woodstock this spring,”

Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

March 5, 2011

By Terry Karkos, Staff Writer,

WOODSTOCK — A Massachusetts-based wind developer announced early Friday evening that it has offered to donate $120,000 to SAD 44 to save three teaching jobs at Woodstock Elementary School.

Todd Presson, chief operations officer of Patriot Renewables LLC in Quincy, confirmed the gift but was unsure of the process that either the school district or town must go through to use the money as intended.

“We had been looking for ways for a while now at becoming part of the community of Woodstock, where we’ve been for a couple of years developing (a wind farm),” Presson said.

On Oct. 5, 2010, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection approved a land-use permit for Patriot Renewables to build 10 wind turbines and the necessary power lines and access roads along the ridgeline of Spruce Mountain.

Presson said the project coordinator, Tom Carroll, attended a few meetings of the school’s Parents-Teachers Association, and asked if there was anything the company could do to work with the community.

“One of the PTA members looked at him — and this was in the middle of the budget stress they were having — and said, ‘Do you have $120,000?’” he said.

“Tom wasn’t able to say yes or no at that point, but we thought about it and we’d be happy to help out, basically, if we can go forward with our wind project for Woodstock this spring,” Presson said.

He said the company has money budgeted and allocated for legal challenges.

“As long as we don’t have any further legal challenges, we can use that money to help the school out, but it sounds like something we should be behind and we’d like to be behind,” Presson said.

He said that on Feb. 4, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection denied an appeal by Friends of Spruce Mountain against approval of Patriot’s estimated $37 million Spruce Mountain Project.

By the end of next week, a 30-day period to appeal that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court expires, Presson said.

David Murphy, SAD 44 superintendent, declined comment Friday evening on the donation, saying he hadn’t been aware of it.

But Linda Walbridge, director of the Western Maine Economic Development Council in Paris, said the money would save three teaching jobs cut earlier this year.

FROM DEKALB ILLINOIS:

CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE: Life with Dekalb Turbines: the diary of a family in a wind project.

FROM AUSTRALIA:

DOUBT OVER GREEN ENERGY'S CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH

 SOURCE The Australian, www.theaustralian.com.au

 March 4,  2011

Graham Lloyd, Environment editor,

Wind turbines are closing in on four generations of the Quinn family who still live at Mt Bryan in South Australia’s picturesque and productive Mt Lofty Ranges.

Rosemary Quinn, 74, says she spends her nights locked inside the 1900s stone house she has occupied for 55 years. She shuts the windows and sets the ceiling fan on high to cover the noise of the wind turbines 2km away.

Quinn’s son Bill and his wife Jenny are about to gamble their 200ha property in a Federal Court challenge to the expansion plans of wind farm developer AGL.

Bill Quinn’s daughter Deb, 32, who works for businesses that profit from the wind farm developments, is worried about the future of her daughter, Jacqueline, and what long-term exposure to nearby wind turbines may mean.

The Quinns are not alone.

They are part of an increasingly vocal army of people in rural settlements who believe they have become collateral damage in Australia’s rush to embrace wind as an alternative energy to combat climate change.

Stories such as the Quinns’, and much, much worse, are scattered through the more than 1000 submissions to a Senate inquiry into the effect of wind farm developments on rural communities.

The inquiry by the Senate community affairs committee has certainly received many submissions of support for wind-farm developments to meet the federal government’s 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. Local community and sporting groups have praised the donations they have received.

But alongside the positive feedback are stories of gag orders, split communities, strongarm tactics and details of awful physical symptoms that people feel sure are the result of living in the auditory and sun-flicker shadow of wind turbine developments that are sweeping the rural landscape.

Family First senator Steve Fielding, who pushed for the Senate inquiry, says: “This is not a question about the viability of renewable technologies. It is to have a look at any adverse health effects for people living in close proximity.”

He says the Senate committee has approached the inquiry with an open mind, but “certainly there are people whose health has deteriorated to the stage that they have had to move out at a complete loss to themselves”.

Public hearings will be held in Canberra on March 25, Ballarat on March 28, Melbourne on March 29 and Perth on March 31.

Glenn Brew of Evansford in Victoria, near the controversial Waubra wind farm, has told the committee he was beginning to think he had a brain tumour until he discovered that other farmers in the area were experiencing headaches similar to his when they were close to the turbines.

Steven Hilary, 50, also of Waubra, has told the committee he is convinced the turbines pose a serious health risk.

“On April 22nd at 4am I suffered a heart attack and to date I have been continually suffering blood pressure issues, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, unbearable tinnitus and disrupted sleep patterns that led to numerous ambulance trips to hospital,” he wrote.

The Senate inquiry clearly has opened a can of worms: affected rural residents believe city dwellers with a penchant for green power have been happy to ignore the situation. Despite what opponents may say, this is not a community backlash that can be dismissed as being rooted in climate change denial or greed.

When Rosemary Quinn first heard wind turbines were coming to her area she visited the already established wind farm developments at Yorke Peninsula and Cape Jervis to have a look.

“I thought they were a terrific invention and we really needed to get all this green power,” she says.

“People now just say I have got a set against them and if they passed us a lot of money it would be all right, but I had a sermon in church this morning that money doesn’t matter. I don’t want their money, I just want some peace and quiet in the last months of my life.”

Sarah Laurie, a South Australian GP who has become a rallying point for people concerned about health effects from living near wind turbines, also cannot be written off as a stalking horse for big coal or the nuclear industry, as her detractors would suggest.

Laurie has worked among South Australia’s Aboriginal communities on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands, where her husband still works as a travelling dentist.

She is a progressive with rooftop solar panels on her Crystal Brook property, and has alienated some friends by asking inconvenient questions about the green revolution. “I still am supportive of wind turbines in the right place,” Laurie says.

“I believe it is a siting issue primarily and we need to get the information in order to site the turbines safely.

“We have a window of opportunity now to get this right. If we don’t I am concerned there is an unfolding public disaster.

“This is not a NIMBY [not in my back yard] issue,” Laurie says. “I don’t think they should be in anybody’s back yard.”

All Laurie is requesting is that rigorous tests, independent of the industry or concerned residents, be carried out. Laurie knows her research, which catalogues a series of health effects among those living near wind turbines, will always be considered tainted by the fact there is a proposal for a wind farm near her own property.

But her findings mirror the results of other research that has also struggled for official recognition from the wind industry and government agencies.

The international research can be traced to British doctor Amanda Harry, who was introduced to a couple living near a wind farm in Cornwall in 2003.

Harry’s research was followed up by South Gippsland GP, David Issa, who surveyed residents living 1.5km to 2km of the Toora Wind Farm in Victoria.

Meanwhile, in Canada, pharmacist Carmen Krough, a senior pharmacist with Health Canada, joined with Bob McMurtry, an ex-dean of a medical school in Ontario, to form a Society for Wind Vigilance in 2009 after experiencing symptoms while staying near a wind turbine development.

As the Ontario Society for Wind Vigilance was being formed, Yale University graduate Nina Pierpont published her survey results, which described a pattern of symptoms that developed or were exacerbated by the turbines, and which disappeared when the subjects left their homes, only to return again when they returned.

She coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe the symptoms that included sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate and panic attacks. Pierpont recommended more research be undertaken into the effect of infrasound, or very low-frequency sound waves.

The wind industry has rejected all the international research and the need for further research into the effect of infrasound. But it has been prepared to buy out some affected property owners with non-disclosure clauses that prevent the sellers from talking about their experience with turbines.

Laurie says the widespread use of confidentiality clauses has made it difficult for land holders who have agreed to host turbines, or those who have been bought out, to provide first-hand accounts of any health effects to researchers.

The Clean Energy Council, the peak body representing Australia’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, told the Senate inquiry that wind energy was an integral part of the renewable energy mix.

It said a survey commissioned by the NSW government in mid-2010 found 80 per cent of residents were supportive of wind farms being built in their local region and more than 60 per cent supported them at 1km to 2km from their residence.

The council cited a National Health and Medical Research Council statement that “there is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects”. There is also a World Health Organisation statement: “There is no reliable evidence that sounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effect.”

The council said the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations had established a scientific advisory panel comprising medical doctors, audiologists and acoustic professionals from the US, Canada, Denmark and Britain, which found labels such as “wind turbine syndrome” were not a recognised medical diagnosis but reflective of symptoms associated with annoyance.

The Clean Energy Council’s points are echoed by the main wind turbine companies in their submissions to the Senate inquiry.

All lean heavily on the statement by the NHMRC. But the NHMRC report does not give wind turbines the clean bill of health that the industry claims. In correspondence to Peter Mitchell from Victoria, who set up the Waubra Foundation with Laurie, the NHMRC said it acknowledged there were opposing viewpoints regarding wind turbines and their potential effects on human health.

“It is important to note that these views are presented by a variety of groups or people, including those with vested interests,” the NHMRC said. “It is important to note that the review, its conclusions and recommendations are based on published scientific evidence at the time of writing and may be updated in future to take into account new evidence as it emerges.”

FROM ONTARIO

WIND POWER FOES LOSE LEGAL BATTLE

SOURCE: The Globe and Mail

March 4, 2011

By Richard Blackwell

Anti-wind power activists in Ontario have suffered a major legal setback, as a panel of judges ruled the province has the right to determine how closely turbines may be placed to homes.

In a decision released Thursday, three judges of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said the provincial government’s regulations that spell out the minimum distance – usually 550 metres – are legitimate.

Lawyers for Ian Hanna, a resident of Prince Edward County, 200 kilometres east of Toronto, had argued at a hearing in January that regulations in Ontario’s Green Energy Act that govern how far turbines must be from dwellings are illegal. If the court had agreed, new wind development in the province could have come to a standstill.

The ruling was a relief for the wind power industry. If it had gone the other way, “it would have created a tremendous amount of uncertainty, ” said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

He said the turbine setbacks were determined through an extensive consultation process, and they are among the most stringent in North America. The association’s position is that there is no direct link between wind turbines and human health.

Mr. Hanna's argument was based on the premise that Ontario did not take proper account of the possible negative impact to human health when it established the minimum turbine setback.

Essentially, he argued, there is no medical evidence that the setback is safe, and that by publishing regulations without sufficient proof, the province breached the “precautionary principle” in its own environmental bill of rights. That principle says the government has to show an activity is safe before it is approved.

But the judges disagreed, saying that “the health concerns for persons living in proximity to wind turbines cannot be denigrated, but they do not trump all other considerations.”

Ontario’s Environment Ministry correctly followed the process outlined in the environmental bill of rights, and conducted sufficient consultation before coming up with its regulations, the ruling said.

The judges also noted that anyone in the province can challenge specific proposed wind projects in front of an environmental review tribunal, and if they can prove that the 550-metre setback is not sufficient, the tribunal can stop the project or increase the setback.

Mr. Hanna said Thursday that he will consider an appeal of the ruling and will continue to fight on behalf of those who think more research must be done into the health effects of wind turbines. “I’ve met too many people who are really suffering from living too close to turbines,” he said. “I’ve seen what it can do to them … I couldn’t walk away.”

Mr. Hanna’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, said there are some positive aspects to the court ruling. The decision made it clear that Ontario’s environmental bill of rights must be taken into account when regulations are set, he said, and it opens the door to other legal challenges to government decisions related to wind energy. “Given the amount of public interest and concern around this issue, it would be very surprising if this was the last legal challenge,” he said.

Ontario’s Environment Minister John Wilkinson said the province’s setback rules are based on 40 years of peer-reviewed science. But he said the ministry “is always open to new research.”

FROM OHIO & ILLINOIS

WIND FARM FALLS FLAT

SOURCE: The Daily Standard, www.dailystandard.com

March 2, 2011

By Shelley Grieshop,

Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.

“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

ST. HENRY – NextEra Energy Resources announced Tuesday it is pulling the plug on a locally-proposed wind farm project out of respect for the area’s rich religious history.

Representatives of the Florida-based wind development company told The Daily Standard they changed their minds about constructing 40 to 70 wind turbines in the region after learning how much residents value the southern Mercer County-based “Land of the Cross Tipped Churches.”

“The last couple months we’ve had discussions with community leaders and area clergymen, and we’ve come to understand and appreciate the whole Cross Tipped Church region,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

“We’ve listened to the community and heard what they had to say … and we agree with them.”

The Land of the Cross Tipped Churches highlights the roots of Catholicism in the area and in 1979 was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The tourist attraction includes 65 churches, former convents, schools and rectories, as well as cemeteries and other sites across Mercer, Auglaize, Darke and Shelby counties.

An informational open house scheduled by NextEra for Thursday in St. Henry has been canceled. Stengel said the event was nixed because of the flooding problems residents are experiencing.

“We don’t want to seem insensitive to the communities,” he said.

Stengel said NextEra “still likes Mercer County” as a wind farm site and is now focusing its attention in the north and northwest sector. Wind test towers will be erected in that area “when appropriate sites are selected,” he said.

The four test towers NextEra has in southern Mercer County will stay in place and continue to collect valuable data, Stengel said. NextEra director Scott Scovill said all leases penned between the company and area landowners are binding and will be honored.

News about NextEra’s decision to abandon the project brought joy and relief to those who had been opposing the development in the St. Henry, Maria Stein, Fort Recovery and Minster area.

“If they’re going to go ahead and make that move, we have to give credit where credit is due,” said Jim Niekamp of St. Henry, a spokesman for Citizens Against Turbines (CAT). “We have to give them credit for listening. It’s what we all hoped for.”

Niekamp said many people feared the proposed giant wind turbines would dwarf the church steeples that identify the region’s heritage. He feels the issue has caused many people to realize the value of “what lies in our own backyard.”

The Rev. Tom Hemm, pastor of the St. Henry cluster of Catholic churches, met with Next-Era officials several times in recent weeks as a representative of the Precious Blood Society. NextEra had unsuccessfully sought to lease land from St. Charles Center in Carthagena – a facility owned by the Precious Blood, he said.

“Our role as the Precious Blood community was to be neutral,” Hemm said, adding the organization supports alternative energy ideas. “We listened and heard excellent reasons from both sides.”
Hemm said his hope all along was that community members embraced the moral values embedded in their heritage.

“I wanted to be sure the values represented by those crosses – mutual respect and a willingness to listen – were being lived by the community,” he said.

NextEra representatives said they haven’t given up hope on establishing their own roots here.

“We wouldn’t be in Mercer County if we didn’t think there was an opportunity here,” Stengel said.

Although happy about the move, Niekamp is skeptical. Mel Haas of DeKalb County, Ill., said a nearly identical situation occurred in his agricultural area nearly eight years ago – and the turbines were still built.
“They came here in 2002-2003 and told us if the community didn’t want this, they would move on,” and they did, Haas said in a phone interview this morning.

However, NextEra officials returned and in January 2010 began operating a wind farm with 126 turbines – many of which surround his rural home in Shabbona.

Haas said he has a message for the people in Mercer County: “Watch your back. Stay vigilant on this issue.”

Stengel confirmed Haas’ version of the company’s actions, but said the company “re-engaged” and ultimately built the wind farm in a different location within the county after market conditions improved.

UNHAPPY ANNIVERSARY: Note from the BPWI Research Nerd--

It's been three years since the 86 turbine Invenergy wind project went on line near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.

Today, March 3, marks the third anniversary of the activation of Invenergy's 400 foot tall turbine #4.

The Public Service Commission allowed Invenergy to erect a turbine that is forty stories tall weighing more than 250 tons less than 1600 feet from a home belonging to the Meyer Family.

(Note: The PSC also permitted Invenergy to site these same turbines as close as 1000 feet from non-participating homes in this project)

Gerry Meyer began keeping a noise diary three years ago. Here's how it begins:

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens. 

Three Years have passed.

Here is a recent e-mail from Gerry Meyer

February 11 2011– 5:40AM. We went to bed last night at 10:20PM.

This was the worst night of sleep since the turbines went up almost 3 years ago.

I was woke up at 11:38. Even on bad nights I usually get 2 or 3 hours of sleep before being woke up. I was woke up every hour after that. I thought I would remember the other times but I can’t remember them this morning. At one of the wake ups I had a head ache--  At 5:38AM I was woke up to the thumping sound of the turbines and could no longer sleep. It is Sunday morning. It would be nice to sleep a little later, but it is not possible. I am so angry as I type this my fingers are shaking. 

Video below, filmed by Gerry Meyer: 

Turbine #4 is the closest one to the house but there are many others. Click on the video below to see them and hear what Gerry Meyer has to say about living in the wind project.

Better Plan posted the following in 2008: Excerpts from Gerry Meyer's turbine noise diary

   GOT TURBINE NOISE? 

Today we feature the first entries of a noise log kept by a Brownsville family who live 3/4 miles east of South Byron in Fond Du Lac County, Wisconsin.

The new wind turbines have just gone on line there. They aren't the only family we've heard are having turbine troubles. We've heard from several. Children seem to be especially affected by noise and headaches.

If you are having problems with turbines it's important you start a day to day diary right away so you will have a record of what is happening to you. And please let us know how you are doing!

The Diary Begins:

Our family lives on County Road Y in Brownsville, Wisconsin, which is about ¾ of mile east of South Byron. 

Turbine # 4 is 1560 feet behind my house.

Turbine # 3a is about 500 feet mostly east and a little north of turbine #4.

Turbine #6 is about ¾ of mile to the northwest of our home.

Across the road, mostly south and slightly west is turbine #73 at a distance of 2480 feet.

Down the hill to the west is turbine #74a which is about ¾ of a mile away.

We can hear all five of these turbines at various times.

The following is a log of our experiences with wind turbine noise

March 3, 2008
Turbine #4 turning slow for the first time. 10:00 pm I went out to check the fire and I looked up in the sky to try and see the jet flying over. It was not a jet, but the turbine.

March 6, 2008
Same sound as Wednesday the 3rd of March

March 7, 2008
Turbine sound. Our 13 year old son, complained of a headache. He had not been told headaches being one of the side effects of turbine noise. My wife and I were concerned about how the turbine noise would affect him. He has become our son via social services with many problems. His ears are like that of Radar on MASH. He hears sounds before we do, such as fire department sirens.

March 8, 2008
Saturday AM. Loudest so far. Like jet in sky with whoosh to it. I have not written every day. That does not mean the turbine sound is not there. I feel we may never have peace and quiet ever again. We can only hope there are days with no breeze.

March 10, 2008
5pm. Sounds like a high flying jet. 10pm Low flying jet. At 10pm loudest I have heard it. My son still has headache.

March 18, 2008
#4 not turning but could hear whose of #6. We could hear the turbines daily so if there is no record that does not mean there was no sound.

March 25, 2008
Could hear whoosh of #3a. #4 not turning at 4:45 PM. At 5:30PM #6 turning with jet sound of whoosh of turning blades.
Our son is a foster child we adopted. He has lots of issues which are mostly behavior but also include mental problems. If we just stopped by to talk and you interacted with him you would not know, but tick him off and you would see it. He is like Radar on MASH in that he usually hears sirens before we do. My wife was concerned about his health when talk began about turbines and then we received information about health issues. Our son does not know about the health issues from us or from anyone talking about them.
        Soon after #4 began turning he had a bad headache. It lasted about four days or he mentioned them for four days. At school there is a complicated way to help him try and behave and do his schoolwork. He does not focus and is angered easily. So there is a level system with level 4 being the best and in level 1 he is in solitary confinement and cannot go to his regular classes. Level 3 he is in the special ed. Room with other students. Level 2 he is in the special ed room but kept from other students. For about two weeks he did well and stayed at level 4. After the turbine began turning  and the headaches he has now gone to level 1. I should also say he can only go up or down one level in a day. Since Wednesday he has told teachers and the principal and us that his head is spinning and in some cases he tells us that his head is spinning 100 miles an hour. I would guess it has a connection to his behavior at school. Sometimes we can hear the turbine while in our house.

March 26, 2008
#4, #3a & #6 running. Can distinguish between #3a and #4 jet sound whoosh.

March 27, 2008
Fairly quiet

March 28, 2008
Not much wind. Slow turn. Not much noise.

March 29, 2008
Wind from SE. Jet sound with only slight Wind.

March 30, 2008
Turbines around us not running much.

March 31, 2008
6AM Jet sound. 10PM fog, drizzle. Woosh sound.

April 1, 2008
Wind NW 14 mph. 6:15AM #4 not running. I hear #6 with jet sound.
 2:30 PM tower #6 still very loud.

April 2, 2008
6AM. Wind from the SW. #4 jet sound. Now hearing #73 and #74a as the have come on line. In the afternoon #74 is louder than #73.

April 3, 2008
6AM Some sound from #4

April 4, 2008
6AM #4 turning slow, no wind. 11PM #4 and 73 loud and sound like jet going over

April 5, 2008
Our son could not sleep and was up at 1:30 AM. I sent him back to bed and went to our family room in the north end of the house. I could hear turbine #6 from inside the house. Remember that turbine is ¾ of a mile from our house. I turned on the TV (low sound) and could still hear the turbine.
7:30 AM Definitely that jet sound from #4.
Can also hear #’s 3a, 6 and 73. I had a brief unusual feeling in my head somewhat like when one gets off a roller coaster. This was around 11:00AM. This is the loudest the sound has been since March 5th. At 11pm still that jet sound.

April 6, 2008
6-6:15 AM. Wind from the South. Turbine #’s 4, 6, 73, 74a all turning. Jet sound as soon as I went out the house door. 9AM #’s 6 &73 loudest. 10PM #4 quite loud. Saturday has been the worst day so far.

April 7, 2008
5:30 AM Can hear the turbines easy.
10:00 PM Quietest in 3 days

April 8, 2008
Drizzle and not many turbines turning at 10PM. #4 some sound

April 9, 2008
My wife told me she had a headache Friday through Monday with turbines turning. She had no headache Tuesday. Turbine was not turning. This morning she told me she has a headache and asked me if the turbine is turning. Yes it is.

April 10, 2008
Fairly quiet today.

April 11, 2008
6AM Could hear the woosh but turbines were hidden in fog. 3:00 PM Loud, jet sound with strong south wind.

April 12, 2008
7:00 AM #4 Jet sound with whoosh sound. At breakfast I asked my son if he could hear the turbines in the house. “Yes, and I hear them in my room,” he said, “Some nights I can’t sleep” His room is upstairs in the SW corner of the house. As I sit below his room (inside the house) I can hear the turbine.

Here's Better Plan's post from last year at this time, when the Meyer's had been living with the turbines for two yearS.

What's it like to live in the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project?

Here are two recent notes to Better Plan from the Meyer Family. They are residents of the Invenergy Forward Energy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac county. 

Since the turbines went online near their home two years ago, they have had trouble sleeping, increased blood pressure, ringing and crackling in the ears and headaches. Cheryl has been taking sleeping medication, something she never needed before the turbines started up.

The closest turbine to their home is less than 1600 feet.

From Cheryl Meyer

March 8, 2010

"The turbines are so loud that our dog, Trigger, goes to the backroom window and barks at them.

It sounds like a snowplow driving around the house full bore with its blade down.

I find it interesting the last few days that when I go out with the dog he goes so far down the sidewalk and then turns and looks north to the turbine. He stares at it a few seconds and then moves on.

 But they have been usually loud the last two days. Just thought I would let you know.  

 Cheryl

March 9, 2010

From Gerry Meyer:

Cheryl has a really bad headache.

 She has tried Imatrex or the shot three times in three days, so today went to the Doctor....

The message Cheryl wrote you was when I was in LA. I remember her telling me that the turbines sounded like snow plow coming through the house.

You could add that Trigger barked because that is what he does when a vehicle comes in the driveway. The turbine was so loud he thought a plow was in the driveway.

Gerry

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

On February 18th, I spent another night in the Meyer home to get a better idea of what they are living with and was kept up well past three in the morning by a thumping from the turbines that seemed to come from all directions.

The only thing I can compare it to is the bass sound you hear coming from a car with powerful speakers. You feel the noise as well as hear it. It was impossible to sleep until it finally stopped.

The typical turbine jet sounds and whooshing were louder outdoors than indoors, but the low thumping was penetrating and much louder inside the home than outside the home. This was especially so on the second floor.

The Meyer family home is a typical wood framed old farm house found throughout rural Wisconsin. The Meyer's young son often goes to bed with two radios playing, one on either side of his head to counteract the turbine noise.

VIDEO SOURCE wivb.com

Second Feature:

WHO CAN COMPLAIN AND HOW?

PLANNERS STUDY WIND TURBINE ISSUES

SOURCE: Ludington Daily News

March 3, 2011

By Jennifer Linn Hartley

How many complaints a person or a household should be able to lodge cost-free against wind turbines and how those complaints would be dealt with were among the topics the Mason County planning commissioners discussed Wednesday night.

Planning commissioners continued to pore over potential changes to the Mason County Zoning Ordinance in regards to wind turbines Wednesday at the Mason-Lake ISD building, a new location for planning commission meeting due to an anticipated large crowd. More than 75 people attended.

Late last year a group of concerned residents proposed an amendment to the ordinance, requesting more stringent rules for wind turbines in the county.

Consumers Energy has proposed 56 476-foot tall wind turbines in Riverton and Summit townships.

As the Mason County Zoning Ordinance is written now, a complainant must pay for the complaint, and if the wind turbine owner is found to be in violation, then the turbine owner pays and the complainant is reimbursed. The system is designed to guard against nuisance complaints.

Commissioners Wednesday discussed whether the complainant should have to pay to submit a complaint, and, if not, how many complaints each person or household should be allowed.

“The complainant out there shouldn’t have to pay,” said Commissioner Bruce Patterson. “It shouldn’t be up to the person who lives out there in that area to have to pay for the complaint. That’s just wrong.”

Commissioners discussed allowing three complaints from one household before a complainant has to pay. If, on the fourth complaint, the turbine is found to be out of compliance, then the turbine owner pays.