9/9/09 Success is in the eye of the lobbyist: Let's take another look at what happened in Kewaunee County.

In a recent letter to the editor of Madison's weekly paper Isthmus, a lobbyist who receives money from wind developers and major Wisconsin utilities angily takes the paper to task for an article entitled "The War Over Wind"

[Click here to read "War over Wind"]

[click here to read the entire letter to the editor]

In an unusual step, the lobbyist even writes a headline for his own letter: 

Anti-wind article damages Isthmus credibility:

To the Editor:

There’s a word to describe the unexamined regurgitation of antiwind talking points sprinkled throughout Brian McCombie’s article “The War Over Wind,” September 11, 2009), but journalism isn’t it. Stenography is much closer to the mark.

But this one-sided article raises an unsettling question: why did the reporter, and by extension Isthmus, leave out so much counterbalancing material in its haste to present windpower in an unambiguously negative light?

Why, for example, was there no mention of Madison Gas & Electric’s Kewaunee County wind energy project? This 17-turbine installation has produced emission-free electricity since 1999. Much of its output feeds MGE’s hugely successful Green Power Tomorrow program.

[The letter goes on and you can read the rest of it by clicking here]

 [NOTE: Though the lobbyist has posted the letter on his own website, Isthmus says they had not yet recieved it. The editor tells us, "It hasn't crossed my desk, and I'm the person who edits letters. We have gotten other letters that have made similar points." ]

The BPWI Research Nerd followed the suggestion and took a look at the history of the Kewaunee County wind projects, and is puzzled, saying, "Only a wind lobbyist or a utility could call what happened to wind farm residents in Kewaunee County a success."

Why?

  

Consider this: At least two homes in Kewaunee County were made uninhabitable by wind turbine noise, purchased by the utility and bulldozed.

Complaints about noise and shadow flicker were so frequent they resulted in the Town enacting a moritorium on any further wind development. A survey was sent to residents in the wind farm and the Town then issued the following report.

Even skimming the report quickly will give you an idea of why the lobbyist's use of the word "success" is so puzzling.


EFFECTS OF WINDFARMS – Lincoln Township, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin

[Download the entire report by clicking here]

Here are excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln’s Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee.

Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin, former Chicago Tribune reporter.

For additional information Dale Massey, Lincoln Township clerk: 920-837-7298


Introduction

After the wind turbines went online in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, the Lincoln Township Board of Supervisors approved a moratorium on new turbine construction. The purpose of the moratorium was to delay new construction of wind turbines for eighteen months, giving the township the opportunity to assess the impacts of the 22 turbines installed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E), which went online in June, 1999.

The following document summarizes some of the problems the Moratorium Committee faced in trying to address problems the township hadn't faced prior to turbine construction and some of the resulting changes the committee proposed as a result of its study. Verification of this information can be obtained from Lincoln Township officials.

The Moratorium Committee met 39 times between January 17, 2000, and January 20, 2002, to 1) study the impact of wind factories on land, 2) study the impact on residents and 3) review conditional use permits used to build two existing wind factories in Lincoln Township.

Survey

The committee conducted a survey on the perceived impacts of the wind turbines that was sent out to all property owners residing in the township. Each household received one vote. The results were presented on July 2, 2001, to the town board, two years after the wind factory construction.

SURVEY OUTLINE

a. Shadows from the blades
b. TV reception
c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers
d. Noise
e. Other problems
-increased lightning strikes
-hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction
-being awaken by sound of wind turbines
-how close would you consider buying or building a home?
Wind developers (WPSC)’s buyout offers
Property values
Stray Voltage

Question: Are any of the following wind turbine issues currently causing problems in your household?

(The first percentage number is from residents within 800 ft to 1/4 mile of a wind turbine
The second percentage number is from residents within 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile of a wind turbine)

_____________________________________________________________________________
a. Shadows from the blades
33% yes 41% yes
Here are additional write-in comments from the survey:

• "We get a 'strobe effect' throughout our house and over our entire property (40 acres)."
• "Shadows are cast over the ground and affect my balance."
• "We installed vertical blinds but still have some problems."
• "They catch my eye and I look at them instead of the road. They are dangerous."
• "Strobe light, headaches, sick to the stomach, can't [shut] everything up enough to stop the strobe coming into the house."

An additional comment from Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk:
•  "The strobing effect is so terrible that turbines should not be any closer than 1 mile from schools, roads and residences . . . They should never be set on East-West."

Dr. Jay Pettegrew, researcher, neurologist and professor for the University of Pittsburgh, testified before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals that strobe effect could cause drivers to have seizures, which could result in fatal traffic accidents. At the very least, drivers could become disoriented and confused, he said. He testified that the turbine spacing (sited on top of hills instead of in a single field in orderly rows) would increase the likelihood of seizures.

It is important to know that according to Lincoln Township Chairperson Arlin Monfils, the wind developers publicly stated that strobe and shadow effect would not occur once the turbines were operating. In reality, strobe and shadow effects were problem enough that residents vehemently complained and the power company anted up for awnings, window treatment blinds and small trees to block the light at certain times of the day. Strobe and shadow effects take place for about 40 minutes during sunrise or sunset if the angle of the sun and the light intensity create the right conditions. Mr. Jeff Peacock, Bureau County highway engineer, has recommended denying permits for 8 turbines due to safety concerns, including strobe effect.

Diane Heling, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, said the utility purchased blinds for her home, but especially in the spring and fall when there are no leaves on the trees, the strobing is at its worst in her home. "It's like a constant camera-flashing in the house. I can't stand to be in the room," Mrs. Heling said. Her neighbor, Linda Yunk, whose property is adjacent to the WPSC turbines, describes the strobe effect as unsettling. "It's like somebody turning something on and off, on and off, on and off . . . It's not a small thing when it happens in your house and when it affects your quality of life to that extent," Mrs. Yunk said.

residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
b. TV reception 33% yes 37% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:

•  "Ever since they went up our reception is bad."
•  "At times you can see shadowing on the TV that imitates the blades' moves, also poor reception."
• "Minimum of 50' antenna tower proposed but no guarantee that would be high enough. Such a tower is unacceptable."
• "At times we get black and white TV. Two channels come in hazy!!"

residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
c. Blinking lights from on top of the towers 9% yes 15% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:

• "Blinking red lights disrupt the night sky. They make it seem like we're living in a city or near a factory."
• "At night it is very irritating because they flash in the windows."
• "We have to keep drapes closed at night."
• "Looks like a circus, live in the country for peace and quiet."

residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
d. Noise 44% yes 52% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:

• "Sounds like a gravel pit crushing rock nearby."
• "Sometimes so loud it makes it seem like we live in an industrial park. The noise dominates the 'sound scape.' It's very unsettling/disturbing especially since it had been so peaceful here. It is an ongoing source of irritation. Can be heard throughout our house even with all the windows and doors closed."
• "The noise can make it impossible to fall asleep. It makes an uneven pitch not like the white noise of a fan. Can be heard through closed windows making it hard to fall asleep anytime of the year."
• "You can hear them at times as far as two miles away."
• "It is the annoyance of never having a quiet evening outdoors. When the blades occasionally stop its (sic) like pressure being removed from my ears. You actually hear the quiet, which is a relief."

The most illustrative description of turbine noise was that of reverberating bass notes from a neighbor's stereo that penetrate the walls and windows of a home. Now imagine having no recourse for asking anyone to turn down that noise, whether it's during the day or in the middle of the night.

As the result of so many noise complaints, WPSC paid for a noise study. However, residents are still upset that the study was inadequate in that it measured decibel levels for a maximum of five days per season, sometimes only for a few minutes at some sites, and included days when rain and high winds blotted out the noise from the turbines. In addition, many measurements were taken when the turbines were not running. WPSC claimed it did not have the funds for a more comprehensive study, according to resident Mike Washechek, whose home is victim to some of the worst noise caused by the turbines, due to its location downhill and downwind from the WPSC turbines.

e. Other problems

On the survey, several residents showed concern over the perceived problem of increased lightning strikes in the area.
Additional write-in comments from survey:

•  ". . . bring lighting (sic) strikes closer to our home."
•  "More concern over seeing more lightening (sic) than in the past -- before generators were erected."

According to Township Chairperson Monfils, the wind developers declared prior to construction that lightning would not affect the turbines; however, lightning later struck and broke a blade that had to be replaced.

In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that one month after the turbines went online, in July, 1999, a lightning and thunderstorm sent enough electricity through the power grid that Mrs. Yunk and Mrs. Heling both lost their computers to what the service technician called a "fried electrical system" -- even though both computers were surge protected. The reason that Mrs. Yunk attributes the electrical surge to lightning striking a turbine on that particular night is that on the night of the storm, her relative, Joseph Yunk, whose television set was also "fried" that same evening, reported seeing lightning move from one of the turbines along the power grid to the nearby homes, which is a common occurrence with wind factories since nearby strikes to either turbines, external power systems or the ground can send several tens of kilovolts along telephone and power lines. Replacements for the computers and television were paid by the residents.

e. Other problems (continued)

On the survey, several residents showed concern over hazardous traffic conditions during and after construction of the turbines.
Additional write-in comments from survey:

•  "People driving and stopping."
• "While they were being installed the destroying of the roads, noise, and extra traffic have been negative."
• "More traffic and have to back out of driveways (live on hill, hard to see)."
• "More traffic. I used to feel safe walking or riding bike (sic)."

In addition, Mrs. Yunk said that especially when the turbines first went up, other drivers would be looking up at them and they would "dead stop in front of you." She said she narrowly avoided colliding with a car that had stopped abruptly in front of her.

Question: In the last year, have you been awakened by sound coming
from the wind turbines?
residents w/i residents w/i
800 ft. - 1/4 mi. 1/4 mi. - 1/2 mi.
_____________________________________________________________________________
67% yes 35% yes
Additional write-in comments from survey:

• "Enough to go to the doctor because I need sleeping pills. Sometimes it absolutely drives you 'nuts.' "
• "I wake up with headaches every morning because of noise. Causes my (sic) to have very restless sleep at night!"
• "We have no way of knowing long-term affects (sic). Growing concerns with stray voltage and its affect (sic) on health. We've had frequent headaches, which we didn't have before. Especially in the morning, after sleeping at night. We need answers!"
• "Not awakened but found it hard to fall asleep!!!"

Question: How close to the wind turbines would you consider buying or building a home?
The results for all survey respondents in the study, including those living over 2 miles away are as follows:

• 61% would not build or buy within 1/2 mile of turbines
• 41% would have to be 2 or more miles away from turbines in order for them to build or buy
• 74% would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines

These are people who know first-hand about the problems caused by the wind factories. They have lived with the turbines for three years. Again, 74% responded that they would not build or buy within 1/4 mile of turbines. Common sense dictates that if a 38-story skyscraper is built next to any home and it obstructs the view, that home would not be as valuable on the market as an equivalent home sited away from such an obstruction. Common sense also dictates that if the skyscraper had moving parts that contribute to or have the potential to contribute to blinking lights, strobing, noise, stray voltage, ice throws, and health problems, that home would not be as valuable as it had been previously. The above numbers from Lincoln Township corroborate that common sense.

Additional write-in comments from surveys:

• "Ugly, would not buy in this area again."
• "25+ miles. They can been seen from this distance."
• "Would never consider it. Plan on moving if we can sell our house."
• "No where near them never ever!! Not for a million dollars."

A sampling of some of the overall write-in comments from the survey is as follows:

• "I live approximately 1 1/2 miles from the windmills. On a quiet night with the right wind direction, I can hear the windmill noise. People living within a 1/4 mile should probably be compensated for the noise and the nuisance."

• "The noise, flashing lights, interrupted TV reception, strobe effect and possible effect of stray voltage has created a level of stress and anxiety in our lives that was not present before the turbines' installation. From the beginning there has been a lack of honesty and responsibility."

• "Let other counties or communities be the guinea pigs with the long-term effects or disadvantages of having the windmills. All the landowners who put the windmills up have them on property away from their own homes but on the fence lines and land near all other homeowners."

• "Our whole family has been affected. My husband just went to the doctor because of his stomach. He hates them. We have fights all the time about them. It's terrible. Why did you put them so close to our new home and expect us to live a normal life. If it isn't the shadows it's the damn noise. The only people that think they are so great and wonderful are those who really don't know."

• "When we were dating back in the 1970's we always said that someday we were going to build a home here. It was great and then you guys did this . . . This should have never happened. If only you would have taken the time and study this more. Everyone was thinking about themselves and money. No one cared about anything else."

WPSC's buyout offer

During the two years of the Moratorium Committee work, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation made offers to buy houses and property to six property owners around the WPSC wind factory site. Offers were made to property owners who vocalized complaints about the wind factory's effects on their quality of life after construction. According to Lincoln Township Supervisor John Yunk, some of these residents were identified on the Noise Complaint Log record kept by the township. Over 90 complaints were logged in one year.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC publicly stated the buyout was to establish a buffer zone around the wind factory. The Noise Complaint Log was discontinued by WPSC after the buyout offer.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, WPSC's intention was to bulldoze the houses and subsequently keep the property from being developed for rural residences. Owners were allowed only one month to consider the offer.

According to the Moratorium Committee report, "This tactic did not sit well with the Committee. In response the Committee drafted and approved a resolution condemning the WPSC ploy, and requesting that WPSC meet with the town board to develop a better solution for the township."

WPSC officials met with the town board and concerned citizens at the August 6, 2001, regular board meeting, reiterated their policy to purchase property and destroy the homes, and stated that they had no intention of meeting with the town board or changing their policies at the request of the town board.

Mrs. Heling was offered the buyout, but she said she and her family were allowed only one month to make the decision and only six months to move. In addition, the buyout offer was based solely on an appraisal by someone hired by WPSC. Mrs. Heling said WPSC refused to consider independent appraisals. Mrs. Heling said she couldn't obtain another property within six months, so she and her family rejected the buyout.

• The Gabriel household was set back 1000 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.

• The Kostichka household was set back 1200 feet from the nearest turbine. The family took the buyout. The county no longer receives property taxes on that raised homestead. The family no longer lives in the area.

• Four remaining homeowners are suing WPSC.

The most recent development is that one homeowner contacted Township Supervisor Yunk during the week of September 11, 2002, and asked what the process would be to request MG&E to buy out her home. She said she has a new baby and two other young children and that she does not want to live in her house any longer because she is too scared about the effects on her family by electronic radiation, stray voltage and other electricity associated with the turbines.

Property values

The following information will directly refute the "Market Analysis: Crescent Ridge Project, Indiantown & Milo Townships, Bureau County, Illinois" report submitted by Michael Crowley to this board.

Mr. Crowley, a paid consultant to the Crescent Ridge developers, alleges in his report that property values won't be affected in Bureau County, based on his analysis, in part, of property values in Kewaunee County.

However, Town of Lincoln zoning administrator Joe Jerabek compiled a list of properties that have been sold in the township, and their selling prices. The list compared the properties' selling price as a function of the distance to the wind factories, using real estate transfer returns and the year 2001 assessment roll.

Conclusions were as follows:

• "Sales within 1 mile of the windmills prior to their construction were 104 percent of the assessed values, and properties selling in the same area after construction were at 78 percent, a decrease of 26 points."

• "Sales more than 1 mile away prior to construction were 105 percent of the assessed values, and sales of properties 1 mile or more after the construction of the turbines declined to 87 percent of the assessed value, an 18 point decline."

Furthermore, not taken into account in Mr. Jerabek's conclusion are the homes that were bought out and bulldozed by WPSC.

Also not taken into account is the fact that of the homes that sold within one mile of the turbines since their construction, four of them were owned within the Pelnar family as the family members shuffled houses. One brother sold to another brother. One brother purchased his father's home. The father built a new home. And a sister purchased land from one brother and built a home. It is important to note that two of the family members are turbine owners themselves.

Subsequent to the zoning administrator's report, homes have gone on the market that are still for sale.

• 1 home, sited across the road from the wind factory, was constructed after the turbines were built and has been on the market for over 2 years.
• 2 homeowners adjacent to the turbines are contemplating selling to WPSC, which may bulldoze the homes, according to neighbor Scott Srnka.
• 1 homeowner is in the process of finding out if MG&E will buy out her home.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Heling, who previously was offered the WPSC buyout, said she would sell if she thought she could get fair value for her home and if it would sell quickly enough that she wouldn't be paying on two properties at once. She said she doesn't believe that can happen, so she has not put up her home for sale.
• 1 homeowner, Mrs. Yunk, who lives across from the WPSC turbines, said she and her husband have decided that after having lived in their home for 28 years, they will be putting it up for sale to move to property farther away from the turbines. She said they are worried about selling their current property because of its proximity to the turbines. They will have to find a buyer who doesn't mind the turbines, she said.

Stray voltage

Another issue addressed by the Moratorium Committee is that of stray voltage and earth-current problems that may be exacerbated by the wind factories. This issue was brought to the attention of the Lincoln Town Board by the committee and concerned residents. An ordinance was passed by the Town Board to study the potential effects and to declare a moratorium on any further turbine development. The Committee agreed that any study of earth currents and stray voltage issues must include an analysis of the distribution system, analysis of the wiring from the utility's grid to the wind turbines, and an analysis of the grounding system used for the wind turbines. They also drafted a request for proposals to identify an expert that could help pinpoint the issues surrounding stray voltage and earth currents. The issue has yet to be resolved.

In the meantime, farmers and their livestock in Lincoln Township have been suffering. There are over four farms that are battling -- among other problems -- herd decline due to diseases that were not present in the herds prior to turbine construction, but are present now, according to farmer Scott Srnka. These problems are not limited to non-participating leaseholders. Farms with turbines have been affected as well, as evidenced by the trucks, which have grown more and more frequent, hauling away animal carcasses, Mr. Srnka said.

Mr. Srnka is a former supporter of the WPSC wind power project that is across the road from his family farm. His dairy herd is about 175 cows on 800 acres of land. Mr. Srnka said, "Thirteen turbines were proposed for my land, but we decided to wait. Thank goodness we did or we'd be out of farming."

Mr. Srnka has traced the decline of milk production and increase of cancer and deformities in his formerly award-winning herd to an increase of electrical pollution on his farm after turbine construction. He also has seen the same chronic symptoms that are in his herd in his family.

Animal health problems in the Srnkas' formerly award-winning herd include cancer deaths, ringworm, mange, lice, parasites, cows not calving properly, dehydration, mutations such as no eyeballs or tails, cows holding pregnancy only 1 to 2 weeks and then aborting, blood from nostrils, black and white hair coats turning brown, mastitis, kidney and liver failure.

Within a few months in the first year after the turbines were erected, 8 cows died of cancer. No previous cases of cancer were detected ever before in the Srnka herd, which is a closed herd, according to Mr. Srnka.

Mr. Srnka also detected a change in well water on his property, and there has been a definite change in taste, he said, which has contributed to the decrease in water consumption by his herd. In the past his cows consumed 30 gallons of water a day, but that figure declined to 18 to 22 gallons of water a day after turbine construction. As a result, cows became dehydrated and terminally ill.

------------------
Video: What the Zoning Board of Appeals members saw was a brief, unedited video interview with Mr. Srnka in his dairy barn, taken this spring. In it there were some of the cows in his herd and Mr. Srnka talking about some of the rewiring that he has had to install to try to combat problems of electrical pollution. Mr. Srnka said that he has had to resort to insulating the farm through electrical wiring to put his farm, in effect, on what he calls its own island.

Dr. Pettegrew, testifying before the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, said he would be remiss as a doctor if he didn't tell the board that he thought the weaknesses and illness he saw in the cows in the video were most likely caused by EMFs or electrical pollution. Dr. Pettegrew also said the risk would be greater in Indiantown and Milo for animals and humans to become ill than in Wisconsin because the proposed turbines would be taller and would produce more electricity.
------------------

Back to what Mr. Srnka has personally experienced. Mr. Srnka and neighbors report serious health effects on not just dairy cows. Health problems in residents include

• sleep loss
• diarrhea
• headaches
• frequent urination
• 4 to 5 menstrual periods per month
• bloody noses: Mr. Srnka had cows bleed to death from uncontrollable bleeding from the nostrils
• inability to conceive

Sometimes even short-term visitors to the farms or homes contract the symptoms, including construction workers on the Srnka property who broke out in nosebleeds after only a few hours. One of the workers left and refused to return.

The Srnkas are so concerned with health effects that they "aren't going to have kids anymore because we're so afraid."

At the time of his testimony before the Bureau County ZBA in October, Mr. Srnka said he had spent upwards of $50,000 of his own money to try to remedy the electrical pollution in his home and on his farm. Mr. Srnka stated that in his opinion, there were three other farms in the area facing enough problems with their herds in the aftermath of the turbines going online that those three farms are "almost ready to sell out."

Representatives of WPSC have denied that there are stray voltage or earth currents affecting Mr. Srnka's family or livestock and will not compensate him for his family health bills, electrical system upgrades, loss of herd or decrease in milk production.

How did the situation become so grave when wind factory developers swore there would be no problems?

Even if a wind developer may claim that the wind factories, substations and power grids will not contribute to stray voltage or electrical pollution because 1) insulated cable will be used, 2) all cable will be buried feet beneath the surface, and 3) cables are laid in thick beds of sand -- these statements should be viewed with suspicion because of poor project track records, according to Larry Neubauer, a master electrician with Concept Electric Inc., in Appleton, Wisconsin. Mr. Neubauer, who has customers who are dairy producers, who are homeowners with stray voltage problems, and who are farmers with turbines on their property, said that currents from each ground on the cables and project substations, as well as the regional transmission lines that receive electrical energy and that are electrically tied together, do not harmlessly dissipate into the soil. Energy disperses in all directions through the soil and these currents seek out other grounded facilities, such as barns, mobile homes and nearby residences. Only in California is it illegal to use the ground as an electricity conductor. In the rest of the country, including Wisconsin and Illinois, power companies are allowed to dump currents into the ground, according to Mr. Neubauer.

Residential properties that are in a direct line between substations and the ground conduits are particularly at high risk since electricity takes the path of least resistance. Mr. Neubauer said that burying the cables, as the Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, project intends to do, "makes it worse," citing the short lifespans of buried cables, frosts that wreak havoc on the cables, and the problems of locating trouble spots that cannot be seen without digging up the cables.

Two of Mr. Neubauer's clients, who were interviewed in October, are dairy farmers who have spent over $250,000 and $300,000 trying to rewire their farms to reduce stray voltage. That cost does not included herd loss or losses from diminished milk production. Mr. Russ Allen owns 550 dairy cows in DePere, Wisconsin. His farm is in a direct line between nearby WPSC turbines and a substation. Mr. Russ said he was losing one or two cows a day during the three years prior to his installing electrical equipment to help reduce currents on his farm. About 600 cows died, he said. Mr. Russ said he has so much electrical current on his farm that he laid a No. 4 copper wire around his farm for 5,000 feet. The wire is not attached to any building or additional wires; yet it can light up a lightbulb from contact with the soil alone. Mr. Russ has scheduled a media day on October 24 to draw awareness to the problems of stray voltage and he said to encourage everyone in Bureau County to attend.

"What scares me more is that I know . . . they're pumping current through people. They're pumping current through kids," Mr. Allen said.

It is important to note that Mr. Noe and his electrical engineer, Mr. Pasley, deny that there will ever be EMFs or stray voltage resulting from the proposed Indiantown/Milo turbines. Just as WPSC has dismissed any problems in the face of mounting evidence, Mr. Noe testified that he will never implement electrical pollution studies and that he thinks they would be a waste of money.

Moratorium Committee findings

As a result of the aforementioned concerns and problems with wind factories in Lincoln Township, the Moratorium Committee recommended, in brief, the following changes from the original conditional use permit:

Insurance. The town is named as an additional insured and the town is held harmless in any litigation.

Fees. Wind developers pay for all costs associated with the permitting process, including hearing costs plus attorney fees -- up front.

Wells. Residents' wells are protected against damage from any type of foundation construction, not only blasting, within a 1-mile radius of each turbine. This includes the requirement that wind developers will pay for independent testing of wells within 1 mile of the project for flow rate and water quality. Developers also must pay for remediation and fix problems within 30 days of complaints.

It is important to note that no well water studies of properties adjacent to the proposed Indiantown/Milo project are planned to assure that all well wills retain the same quality of water before and after turbine construction.

• TV reception. Wind developers will pay for testing of television reception prior to construction and pay to correct degradation of TV signals. Wind developers will expand the potential problem area to a 1-mile radius for all complaints -- period.

It is important to note that despite claims that television reception would not be affected, the wind factory developers in Lincoln Township had to pay for power boosters and reception equipment to counteract the effects of the turbines. The residents also had to fight with the utilities when an additional local station was added and the utilities refused to pay for any more TV reception improvements for the duration of the 30-year turbine contract. Residents had to fight to get the power company to add the station. Three years later, residents are still unhappy about how the turbines continue interfere with their reception, in many cases observable in unclear stations and in the color flashes that coincide with the turning of the blades, according to Mrs. Heling.

It also is importation to note that no television reception testing is planned prior to turbine construction in Indiantown or Milo townships and that Mr. Noe said steps taken to correct reception problems would have to be reasonable.

• Noise. 50 decibels for noise is too great. Noise shall not exceed 40 to 45 decibels, though 35 decibels was recommended unless there is written consent from affected property owners.

It is important to note that the noise study submitted by Illinois Wind Energy, LLC, uses theoretical generalizations about topography and noise conduction and does not use the same height or turbine models proposed for Indiantown and Milo.

As a side note, according to Walgreens Drug Store Web site, the "most sensitive" earplugs they sell only block out noise at 30 decibels.

• Tower removal. Turbines and all relegated aboveground equipment shall be removed within 120 days after the date the generators reach the end of their useful lives, the date the turbines are abandoned, the termination of the landowner lease, or revocation of the permit. An escrow account will be established or bonding provided by the wind developers to ensure tower removal.

• Tourism. Wind developers are banned from promoting the project as a tourist destination, will not provide bus or tourist parking and will not provide promotional signs located at the projects or elsewhere.

It is important to note that despite the ordinance prohibiting promotion of the wind turbine project, WPSC was caught red-handed by Township Supervisor Yunk last month in August filming a promotional video with child actors riding bicycles in front of the turbines. Mr. Yunk ordered the film crew to leave, but they refused and continued filming. The township has found that once the turbines were constructed, it has been practically impossible to enforce the ordinance or gain cooperation from WPSC or MG&E.

• Road damage. Wind developers will pay for the total cost to return the towns' roads to town standards, not just pay for damaged areas. Any road damage caused by the wind developers during the repair, replacement, or decommissioning of any wind turbines will be paid for by the wind developers. An independent third party will be paid by the wind developers to pre-inspect roadways prior to construction.

It is important to note that Township Chairperson Monfils said that it's not a matter of "if" there will be road damage. There will be road damage. The wind factory developers in Lincoln Township said originally that they would fix the roads if there were damage. But when it came time to fix the roads, the township had to "scrap with them to get it done," according to Mr. Monfils. He said the developers disputed the costs and he had to battle with them two or three times to get repairs paid.

• Periodic review. Every year the project will undergo a periodic review for the purpose of determining whether wind developers have complied with the permit and whether wind projects have had any unforeseen adverse impacts. Any condition modified or added following the review will be of the same force and effect as if originally imposed. Wind developers will send a representative at least once a year to report the operating status of the projects and to receive questions and comments from the governing body and township residents.

It is important to note that even with the review, Lincoln Township residents reported being dissatisfied with the developers' response to their complaints. Mrs. Yunk said the developers were readily available prior to construction, but afterward were scarce. She said she fielded calls from residents who could not reach developers and residents who were given the run-around, being told they needed to contact other people within the organization. She said residents' concerns and problems were deflected by the developers, who said residents had to prove that problems did not exist previously and residents had to prove that without a doubt the problems were the result of the turbines.

• Health and safety. If a serious adverse unforeseen material impact develops due to the operation of any of the turbines that has a serious detrimental effect on the township or a particular resident, the township has a right to request the cessation of those turbines in question until the situation has been corrected.

• Strobing effect, blade shadows and stray voltage earth currents are some other issues to be addressed.

In effect, with these guidelines, Lincoln Township is making construction of new turbines unattractive to further development. They are finding it almost impossible to remedy problems with the current turbines and restore a former quality of life to residents. However, they are trying to ensure no more mistakes will be made.

As Mrs. Yunk plainly said, "Anyone that thinks there aren't going to be problems resulting from the turbines has got another guess coming." She said that she and other residents felt like the bad guys for opposing the turbine project and warning other residents that the project would spell disaster. She said she hates now that what they feared has come true; there isn't any self-satisfaction in being able to say, "I told you so."

The board must weigh heavily the situation of Kewaunee County and the voices and experiences of residents who have no vested interest in wind development in Bureau County. They have no vested interest in telling anything but the truth. They are telling it like it is, and unfortunately, like it was.

For additional information

Dale Massey, Lincoln Township clerk: 920-837-7298

Prepared by Elise Bittner-Mackin, former Chicago Tribune reporter
Click on image below to hear the Lincoln Town Board Chairman speak about his experiences with the Kewaunee wind farm.

9/28/09 What's this about the Wind Farm Strong Arm in Michigan?

“Opponents say tighter restrictions are needed. The wind industry says tougher rules will keep wind farms out of Michigan.”

Homeowners fight against the wind

Turbines blow ill wind for some

BY TINA LAM
[CLICK HERE TO READ AT SOURCE: DETROIT FREE PRESS ]

PIGEON -- In the Champagne household, there are two opinions on the whirling wind turbines that surround the family's home of 35 years. Gene Champagne is bothered by the thumping, rumbling sound of the blades that loom like giants over the house. The noise disturbs his sleep and destroys his TV reception. Flickering shadows from sun on the blades run around rooms.

His wife, Betty, says she thinks the towers are fine. "They're majestic," she said. "But I'm bothered because it bothers him."

While turbines are good for the environment and for farmers who reap thousands of dollars a year from leasing their land to wind firms, some neighbors aren't happy. They say towers sound like jet engines overhead that never leave and they can feel the vibrations in their chests.

Opponents say tighter restrictions are needed. The wind industry says tougher rules will keep wind farms out of Michigan.

Neighbors object to noise, proximity and seek more limits

On a wind map of Michigan, Huron County is the bull's-eye.

The county hosts the state's two commercial wind farms. Besides good winds, it has wind-friendly policies and plenty of agricultural land. Farmers who lease acreage to wind companies are thrilled with the extra cash, which amounts to several thousand dollars a year and sometimes five figures.

County Zoning and Planning Director Russ Lundberg expects 700-1,000 turbines in the next few years, compared with 78 now. "We want them," he said.

State officials have bigger dreams: as many as 2,800 twirling towers in the Thumb and another 1,200 in west Michigan. Gov. Jennifer Granholm wants to make Michigan the nation's 14th windiest state, a big player in wind power to attract green jobs and investment.

But in Huron County and elsewhere in the state, residents who have turbines as neighbors are pushing back.

Wind farms have generated anger, tension and conflict, even in places that don't have any yet. The issues are height, how close turbines can be to homes, property values, flickering shadows from blades and noise.

Ten Huron County residents have filed formal complaints about turbine noise. They say the county's zoning allows towers too close to homes. Some have "No Wind" signs on their lawns.

Those complaints, and others across the country, are being watched closely by people in areas targeted for giant turbines.

In Lake Township at the tip of the Thumb, two commissioners were tossed off the local zoning board earlier this month for slander and misfeasance after they pushed an ordinance that would restrict turbines. A board member who voted to remove them has leased his land for a future DTE Energy wind farm.

"It's pitting neighbor against neighbor," said Valerie McCallum, clerk of Lake Township.

Some governments, like Centerville and Leelanau townships in Leelanau County, have or are working on zoning that wouldn't allow commercial-size turbines, which can be as high as a 30-story building. Others, like Ann Arbor Township and Paris Township in the Thumb, have moratoriums on turbines until they hammer out regulations.

Some see the state as the 800-pound gorilla in the debate. They say state wind zoning guidelines, developed by an informal working group with industry input in 2005, are too lax. The guidelines have no height restriction and allow turbines 300-400 feet from homes, a little more than the length of a football field. Even pro-wind Huron County requires more space -- 1,000 feet -- from homes.

John Sarver, chairman of the Michigan Wind Working Group, which came up with the state guidelines, said he thinks the real issue isn't noise but the visual impact of turbines. "We don't necessarily outlaw certain developments based on individuals' reactions," he said.

If local governments pass too many restrictions, the state Legislature could step in and dictate standards statewide, Lundberg said. That happened in Wisconsin, where the state's public utility commission now sets requirements for wind farms.

"It's a huge challenge," Lundberg said of trying to balance the interests of farmers, who want turbines because they bring in thousands of dollars a year in income, and neighbors who are bothered by them.

'It's affecting our health'

When David Peplinski found out wind turbines were coming to Ubly, he heard that they would be no louder than a clothes dryer. Instead, several nights a week, the noise drives him and his family from the house he spent five years restoring. They rent an apartment where they sleep. "It's affecting our health," he said. "When my wife and kids sleep there, they feel much better."

From the kitchen sink of what was once his grandparents' home, he sees turbines in two directions. The closest one is 1,300 feet, about a quarter-mile away. At its worst, the blades sound like a helicopter parked overheard. Peplinski said he can feel the low-frequency vibrations, as well as hear the sound. The county's sound limit is 50 decibels, but officials have no way to check compliance.

Peplinski filed a formal complaint with the county over the noise, as did his father, who lives nearby. In mid-October, a firm hired by John Deere, which owns all 78 turbines in the county, will do sound testing at people's homes, said planner Lundberg.

Peplinski and others troubled by the noise say putting turbines a mile away would help with noise issues, as well as the flickering shadows cast when sun hits the blades at certain angles.

That would mean fewer turbines in a given area, which doesn't make wind companies happy. Joe DeVito, vice president of RES Americas, which hopes to put 250-300 turbines in Huron County, said setbacks of a mile "would mean we're probably not going to do wind in this state."

Peplinski, who comes from a farm family, said he thinks too many people are blinded by the money turbines bring. He's frustrated that his concerns have been ignored.

"I understand the economics of this, the need for income," Peplinski said. "What I don't understand is their unwillingness to take what I say as valid."

Rick James, an acoustic expert in Okemos who has done pre- and post-turbine testing for some homeowners, said there are noise complaints across the country at commercial wind farms, including in the province of Ontario, which plans to require further setbacks from houses.

James said some people are more sensitive to sound than others, and that there are large variations in geography and even the size of rooms in a house that affect what they hear. "There are people in every community that aren't bothered, and those that are," he said. "If people are getting ill and not sleeping, it's not good."

James said in a 2006 report before any turbines went up that the state and Huron County's noise limits were seriously flawed, ignored advice from a technical expert and would lead to complaints from people in the once-quiet rural area.

'We have to make the best of it'

Angie Weber, her husband, Randy, and their four kids have ended family campouts in a tent in their yard, a favorite summer activity, after wind turbine noise drove them inside this summer. No one slept well; the kids needed naps.

Even when she's out running, wearing earphones, Weber can hear the blades. The sound changes often, as the blades alter direction.

"We don't have an option of packing up and leaving; we have to make the best of it," she told a state board in August. "Our entire lives' investment is here." Her husband farms sugar beets, corn, wheat and hay and raises beef cattle outside Ubly.

Even before 46 new turbines went up in the fall of 2008, Weber and others collected more than 1,800 signatures on petitions to put the county wind turbine zoning to a vote, but a judge ruled the petitions invalid. "Some of us had done research and were concerned about the setbacks," she said. "We thought they were too close."

She had acoustic expert James do testing at her home before the turbines, and he found that at night, the ambient sound was in the high 20 decibel range, quieter than some acoustic testing labs.

Now, the turbine across the road on a neighbor's farm is allowed to go up to 50 decibels at night.

Planner Lundberg said his county may revisit setbacks and noise levels for future projects but won't do anything that would drive wind companies away. "What happens if, because of 10 written complaints, we change our standards to a point where it doesn't look like wind could work here?" he said.

"If we can't make it work here, it's not going to work anywhere in Michigan."

Energy board's 1 public advocate now works for wind firm

Those who live closest to Michigan's existing wind turbines say their concerns are often ignored because officials of local government either have leased their land to wind farms or live in areas that won't get wind development.

Huron County Zoning and Planning Director Russ Lundberg, a wind power advocate, lives on Sand Point, a tiny finger of land on the county's northern tip too skinny to fit turbines -- unless they end up offshore, he noted.

A state board, the Michigan Wind Energy Resource Zone board, which is examining where the best areas of the state are for wind, has 11 members. No members, however, are from Huron County, the only place in the state so far with sizable wind farms.

Five board members represent the wind industry: utilities planning wind farms, wind developers, electricity transmission firms and alternative energy companies. The other members represent environmental groups, the attorney general, townships and cities.

The lone member chosen to represent the public, Mary Templeton, didn't work for a wind firm when appointed in 2008, but she does now.

Templeton is listed as vice president of sales for Wind Energy Consulting & Contracting, a Florida firm, in various news releases since August.

In e-mails to the Free Press, Templeton said her company focuses on smaller wind projects rather than large commercial-size ones, so she doesn't see a problem. "I see no reason why there would be any conflict of interest, however, I will respectfully abstain from any vote that ... represents a conflict of interest," she said.

The home page for Templeton's company says: "We deliver the total package for wind energy projects large and small. ... Small to utility scale. We do it all."

Carolyn Weed lives in Centerville Township in Leelanau County, which the state wind board has targeted for wind development. She was stunned to hear about Templeton's new job. "Are you kidding me?" she said. "Then there's nobody representing the public."

Yard sign near Ulby, MichiganNOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The person who sent us the link to this story asks a good question:

"Will public health and safety ever be acknowledged when it comes to siting industrial wind turbines? There appears to only be one choice. If you want wind development in a state you need to ignore the health and safety of non-participating landowners and keep installing industrial wind turbines too close to people’s homes."

CLICK HERE TO READ "WHAT'S THE LATEST? TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 at 11:50AM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

9/25/09 Greetings from Ontario where wind farm residents have abandoned their homes because of poorly sited turbines. AND: WIND FARM STRONG ARM IN ILLINOIS! Florida Power and Light files lawsuit against rural DeKalb County village of 300.

There are many people across Ontario who are being harmed by the simple fact they live too close to wind turbines. These are honest, hardworking people with a moral code about right and wrong. They are typical rural people who have strong work ethics and connections to their neighbours and community. They are good people who can’t comprehend why our government is doing nothing to help.

The tragedy is, some families are being driven from the homes they’ve lived in for decades and have incurred losses — financial, emotional, health and living conditions. Many of these people welcomed green energy into their communities in the form of wind turbines in the beginning.

A community-based, self-reporting health survey is being conducted in the areas where wind turbine complexes are operating. There are about 585 operating turbines across Ontario. Within six weeks, 76 responses were received. Of this, 53 victims reported that the turbines disturbed their living conditions and resulted in adverse health effects. The survey results are posted on www.windconcernsontario.org.

Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, presented the health survey results at the Green Energy Act Bill 150 Committee Hearings (Ontario). Examples of the adverse health effects include sleep deprivation which leads to serious health problems, (this is the number one problem) headaches, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), cognitive dysfunction and some serious cardiac effects such as irregular heart rhythm, palpitations and high blood pressures.

Reports of health problems are still coming in. There are now over 100 respondents. The survey is ongoing and results will be updated periodically.

This is not unique to Ontario. The reports of symptoms are consistent with the work of Dr. Amanda Harry (2007), U. K., Dr. Nina Pierpont, U. S. A., and Dr. Michael Nisseubaum (Mar 2009),U. S. A.

Dr. Amanda Harry studied 42 adults and found disturbed living conditions, a high number of subjects experiencing sleep deprivation, headaches and other adverse health effects from wind turbine complexes.

Dr. Nina Pierpont from the U. S. A. has studied 10 families comprised of 38 people. Eight families have been forced from their homes. The last two would like to, but cannot afford it so they are trying to cope. Dr. Pierpont’s peer review book Wind Turbine Syndrome is targeted to physicians and is due in about a month. In the meantime, she has published excerpts drawn from her peer-reviewed book on her site www.windturbinesyndrome.com.

More physicians are expressing serious concerns regarding adverse health effects with wind turbine complexes. In early 2009, the medical staff from the Rumford Health Center in Maine unanimously signed a resolution asking for a one -year moratorium on any wind turbine installation until proper studies are done.

In late March 2009, Dr. Michael Nisseubaum from the Northern Maine Medical Centre presented his findings of a study he conducted to the Maine Medical association. Dr. Nisseubaum interviewed 15 adults. The data, which he characterized as alarming, suggest the residents experiencing serious health problems related to shadow flicker-noise emissions from the turbines near their homes. The onset of symptoms including sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, weight changes, possible increases in blood pressure, as well as increased prescription medication use, all appear to coincide with the time when turbines were first turned on December 2006.

Note it has been established by at least three peer review European studies that sleep deprivation occurs near wind turbine facilities in about 25 per cent of people living near wind turbines. The finding of sleep deprivation has been reproduced in the studies of Drs. Amanda Harry, Nina Pierpont, Michael Nisseubaum and the Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) health study which is now at 86 cases.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a prestigious medical body has stated in an editorial “Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increased the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.” (Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 116, pg. A237-238, 2008.)

The health survey results presented to the GEA Committee Hearings on Bill 150 by Dr. McMurtry are filling the void for the post market vigilance required for the introduction of wind turbine complexes into the population.

The Ontario government allowed wind turbine complexes without doing its homework. It then made a policy, again without doing its homework. It continues to approve the building of new ones and expanding existing complexes without doing its homework.

All of this says that there is a problem. Our guidelines for setbacks and noise are not working. People are getting sick. Our setbacks are designed for economic and political reasons. We need setbacks for health that are based on proper authoritative epidemiological studies. The setbacks for health cannot be determined by opinion.

Wind energy has been implemented without proper epidemiological studies. Victims are suffering and being ignored. It is a shameful situation. Some are asking for a public inquiry.

Examine the evidence. Health and safety issues for rural residents living close to turbines have arisen in every jurisdiction where they have been installed. A good government should be prudent with its public resources and answerable to the taxpayer instead of putting the health, the environment and quality of our lives at risk.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the images below to watch video of Ontario residents who are having trouble living with the setbacks previously believed to be safe.

Town of Lee Wants Wind Developer Lawsuit dismissed

1360wlbk.com

24 September 2009

The Village of Lee has filed a motion asking that a judge dismiss a lawsuit filed against them by a company that wants to build wind turbines near their borders, and the law firm representing the village of just over 300 people on the western edge of DeKalb County says the village plans to “vigorously” defend against lawsuit by the company building a wind farm mostly in southwest DeKalb County.

FPL Energy Illinois Wind, in the lawsuit it filed Friday, says the Lee Village Board “arbitrarily” denied their request for permits to build six wind turbines within the one-and-a-half miles around the village that municipalities have control over under state law. The company wants a judge to order Lee to grant the permits.

But attorney Keith Foster with Foster and Buick Law Group, which represents the village, says the Board’s denial was based on input it received from the wind farm company and after hearing potential reasons for denying the request during two public hearings. He says the Board’s reasons met the requirement for denying the permits.

“The reason would have to have a reasonable basis so any reason at all that is considered rational by an ordinary person would be a basis for denial,” says Foster.

The Village Board’s reasons for the denials included feeling the 450-foot tall turbines would be too close to homes.

The Village also wants a judge to examine how the company’s lawsuit was filed, with the village’s lawyers saying an unidentified, “badge-waving” agent filed the suit and an unidentified person served summons to village board members while demanding they appear in court this week. The law firm says it has serious questions about the tactics of the wind farm company and its attorneys.

“And we are going to monitor that closely and we are going to raise objections with any tactics that are used, any procedures that are employed, that are outside of the rules that we all have to follow that are given to us by the Supreme Court,” says Foster.

An official for the wind farm project calls the claims misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

 IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ MORE :

Village of Lee petitions judge to examine how summons were served

DeKALB – Lawyers for the Village of Lee are asking a judge to examine how court summons were served to village board members who are being sued for rejecting a request by an energy company to build six wind turbines near the village.

In court documents filed Wednesday, lawyers for Lee say an unidentified person filed the lawsuit late Friday afternoon. That person – identified only as a male in court documents – “waived [sic] a badge of some nature” at a deputy clerk who was filing the complaint. Lee’s court filing also claims an unidentified person served summons to village board members, demanding they appear in court this week; lawyers for Lee say they have no idea who the server was or whether he was properly licensed to carry out the task.

“We believe the Village of Lee acted well within its authority in rejecting the sitting request,” attorney John Countryman said in a written statement Wednesday. “I have serious questions about the tactics of this Florida outfit and their Chicago attorneys.”

The document filed Wednesday asks a judge to investigate who was involved in filing the lawsuit and serving the summons. The document also asks a judge to throw the lawsuit out because it was filed improperly.

FPL Energy Illinois Wind LLC filed the lawsuit Friday in DeKalb County Court, claiming the Lee Village Board improperly denied the company’s application for permits to build six wind turbines. The turbines would not be within village limits, but they fall within the village’s jurisdiction, according to state law.

Anthony Pedroni, project manager of the DeKalb-Lee wind farm project, said any problems raised by lawyers for Lee are “misinterpretations or misunderstandings.” He said he was certain the law firm hired by FPL followed the letter of the law in having summons served to Lee Village Board members.

“It’s a well-respected firm, and they know how to properly go about this process,” Pedroni said.

FPL’s lawsuit demands a judge compel approval of the permits – allowing construction to move forward – and to award at least $200,000 in damages for time and resources lost while the project sits idle.

The six turbines involved in this lawsuit are part of a 151-turbine wind farm that straddles the DeKalb-Lee county line. Turbines in the non-municipal portions of the project – which will be home to most of the turbines – are under construction.

Another legal action is pending; a citizens group filed a lawsuit in July, claiming the DeKalb County Board improperly granted construction permits and is seeking a halt to the project.

Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 09:11PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

9/24/09 Who cares when the fox writes the rules for the hen house? No one, really. Unless you're a resident hen to a wind developer fox.

What's going on just south of the border? How different is it in Wisconsin?  

This article spells it all out. Wind developers actually wrote the wind ordinance for Winnebago County in Illinois. One could say wind developers are able to hold a county or town hostage in this way, insisting on setbacks that have nothing to do with health and safety for members of the community. The one and only thing they care about is profit. It’s about quantity siting for profitability and that’s it. This makes sense from a business standpoint, but in terms of human impact its a formula for misery.

How long will wind developers be able to run rough shod over communities and local government?

With the federal government now offering them cash grants for up to 30% of their costs, and with recently passed legislation that protects their every move by stripping local government of control, we say 'rough shod' won't even begin to cover it. Try 'stampede'

 

 

Wind Farm Ordinance to Full Board on September 24

 By Stuart R. Wahlin

Staff Writer

[Click here to read it at The Rock River Times]


Sept. 16, members of the Winnebago County Board Zoning Committee pored over minutiae in a 15-page proposed text amendment to the county’s zoning ordinance that would open the door to commercial wind power generation in the county.

 

Because the wind industry has yet to blow into Winnebago County, no rules exist to govern them.

 

The measure was first proposed in April by Minneapolis-based Navitas Energy, Inc., which wants to include agricultural land in southwestern Winnebago County in a 100-turbine wind farm straddling the convergence of Ogle, Stephenson and Winnebago counties.

 

Navitas plans to site 40 of the turbines in Winnebago County, and would lease property from participating landowners for up to $6,000 per year for each turbine location.

 

According to the Navitas Web site: “Landowners receive rents for the turbines placed on their land, injecting money into the local economy. Counties receive tax revenue from the project based on the assessed real estate value of the wind farm facilities. During construction, local businesses and suppliers receive the benefit of 80-100 construction workers on site for a period between nine and 18 months, as well as the creation of construction jobs. After construction is complete, several local full-time operations, maintenance and service jobs are created.”

 

Despite generating electricity locally, utility rates are not expected to be affected, because Navitas would be required to sell the power to ComEd, rather than directly to consumers.

 

Permitted use vs. special use


The proposal is being presented by Navitas as a permitted use, meaning no special-use permit is required from a wind farm developer as long as the criteria in the ordinance are met.

When the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) heard testimony last month, however, some citizens argued a special-use permit should be required so that individual proposed sites could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

As a special use, any proposed wind farm project would have to be considered by the ZBA, giving residents a say in each case before a final decision by the County Board. Citing this reason during the Sept. 16 zoning meeting, Steve Schultz (R-2) moved to amend the text to require a special-use permit.

 

“There may be unique factors relative to a particular siting of a particular project that, by allowing it under the special-use, you would provide for that to come out in the testimony, so whatever the special circumstances of that particular location were, it could be evaluated individually,” he explained.

 

“I’ve heard strong concern represented by the citizens of this county that the establishment or the construction of the wind power-generating facility is a significant event for any neighborhood, and they wanted to have an opportunity to have a say, to express their concerns about a particular project,” Schultz said. “This is such a substantial change in the utilization of land that it ought to be a special use.


“We have spent substantial amounts of time evaluating the heights of garages,” he added. “We’ve spent a substantial amount of time discussing whether an Ag outbuilding could be utilized for the renovation of antique luxury cars.” Schultz argued a special use ought to apply to “something that is gonna have a phenomenally greater impact on communities.”

 

He also noted other counties typically assign a special use, not a permitted use, to wind farm projects.

 

Ogle County, in which Navitas already operates, is one such county to have opted for a special use.

 

According to Ogle County Planning & Zoning Administrator Mike Reibel, “There was never a debate or consideration given to commercial wind farms being granted permitted-use status in Ogle County.

 

“I believe that, due to the magnitude of wind farm projects, and their impact—real and/or perceived—the public expects an opportunity to be heard,” Reibel explained. “Also, since each project is somewhat unique, a special use provides an opportunity to the county to impose specific conditions upon the project to ensure the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the county.”

 

Stephenson County also approaches wind farms as a special use, but that wasn’t always the case.

 

In 2008, after having researched wind farms in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Stephenson County Zoning Director Terry Groves decided to pursue a switch to permitted use. About eight months after the permitted use was approved by the Stephenson County Board, however, litigation followed.

 

“We had a company that wanted to expand its operation that already got approval [under the criteria of a special-use permit],” Groves explained. “We got, of course, sued over the permitted use.

 

“The company didn’t want to come in and apply under a challenged ordinance, so the county board went and reversed their decision on the permitted use, back to a special use,” he said.

 

Although Groves indicated things are now proceeding smoothly under the special use, he’d still like to give permitted use another shot.

 

“My permitted use had higher standards, more restrictive standards, than the special use has now,” he noted. “But, the objectors—they didn’t like it, because they wanted public hearings. They wanted somebody like the county board to have oversight on it, instead of my office or the standards that I had.”

 

Although there would have been no public hearings, per se, under Groves’ plan, public meetings would have taken place in order to address any concerns from citizens. Furthermore, he said, individuals who may not have agreed with a decision would have had the option to appeal.

 

“I love the permitted use and, if it’s approved [in Winnebago County], I’m bringing mine right back up again,” Groves said, while noting his belief the public has the right to a say in the process. “I think there should be some sort of mechanism for the public to address concerns, rather than just having someone start to dig in the backyard and, all of a sudden, you’ve got a 60-unit wind farm.”


Although sympathetic to concerns, Frank Gambino (R-14) said he felt any apprehension could be alleviated through the crafting of a permitted use.


“I think if we get those right, I don’t know that special use is needed,” Gambino asserted.

“Permitted use would help support this industry in this county, as long as we get it right.”

 

Andrew Evans, Navitas project manager, said of the permitted-use proposal, “I think what we’ve tried to do here is essentially lay out all of the issues that typically come up in wind farm hearings, and essentially put them all in the ordinance so that we have to address them.

 

“The same issues come up at almost every single special-use hearing,” he added. “And instead of hearing those again and again and again for each individual wind farm, we’ve essentially put them directly into the ordinance. So what we have left is an ordinance that’s significantly more restrictive than any other ordinance you’re gonna see in Illinois, other than certain counties that have adopted ordinances specifically to keep wind out of the county.”


Evans assured an “open and clear” process.

 

“It’s gonna show clear government intent, and it’s gonna lay out clear hurdles that a potential developer has to jump to appropriately site a wind farm in the county,” Evans said. “It takes a lot of the subjectivity out of the process, and it’s gonna encourage investment in the area. …It takes a lot of the uncertainty out of it, which is potentially gonna scare away a developer.”


Hastings agreed it would be more desirable to spell out exactly what is expected of wind farm developers as a permitted use than to leave doubts as to whether a project is worth pursuing as a special use.


Schultz, however, reminded colleagues that most wind farms in other counties are approved under special use.


Although the committee’s chairman, Paul Gorski (D-3), agreed a special use may not be necessary, he supported Schultz’s motion as the only way for citizens to voice their opinions when new wind farm projects are proposed for other areas of the county.


After about an hour of discussion, the motion to amend failed in a 3-3 tie. Gambino, Angie Goral (D-7) and Bob Hastings (D-13) voted “no.”


It is possible, however, the issue could be reconsidered during the Sept. 23 meeting, or by the full board.

 

Definition of an occupied building, setback distances considered


The committee spent 90 minutes wrestling over what constitutes an “occupied building.”

 

As presented, the ordinance stated: “‘Occupied Building’ means a residence, school, hospital, church, public library or other building used for public gathering that is occupied and in regular use as of the date the permit application is submitted, or which although unoccupied or not in regular use, is in a condition suitable for occupation or regular use without substantial alteration or repair. A building used primarily for storage, such as a garage, storage shed, barn, or other outbuilding shall not be deemed an Occupied Building for purposes of this Article.”


But a planning commission from Seward, an unincorporated community where turbines are to be located, thought the definition needed to be expanded to require setbacks from agriculture-related structures.


“A lot of [farmers] spend more time in their livestock building or in their machine shop than they do in their house, probably,” Seward Township Clerk Jim Monge explained.


Monge said he wasn’t nearly as worried about safety setbacks from other farm-related buildings, like corn cribs, which are seldom occupied.


Reportedly, Seward could file a legal objection, requiring a super-majority vote by the county board to pass the measure, 21 of 28 votes.


During discussion, most committee members agreed the setback should apply to farm buildings used for more than just storage.


Dave Yeske (R-2) made a motion to amend the “occupied building” definition to include livestock barns, farm-related garages and machine sheds that may be visited from time to time. The amendment passed with only Hastings voting “no.”


In its present state, the ordinance requires a setback of 1.1 times the height of a 441.1-foot-tall turbine for occupied buildings of participating landowners. A setback of 1,200 feet is required from non-participating properties.


Later in the meeting, Schultz made a motion to increase the setbacks to 1.5 times the turbine height and 1,600 feet, respectively.


Evans quickly pointed out wind farm setbacks are typically only 500 feet.


“The intent there is to protect people,” Evans said of the 1,200-foot setback. “The ability of the developer to site turbines is significantly limited by setbacks. And if you start increasing the setbacks… there is the potential that you’d be crafting an ordinance that wouldn’t allow wind farms to happen at all.”


Evans conceded: “I won’t say that there are no areas on earth that don’t have larger setbacks than that. I can say that the counties nearby that do have wind farms—1,200 is a very conservative residential setback.


“Given the tendency of the county to have smaller parcels, you would be significantly hindering the ability of the developer to site wind turbines,” Evans argued.

 

Although his motion ultimately failed, Schultz retorted: “The fact that 1,200 feet, while consistently stated as very conservative, is substantially less than setbacks where, even admittedly, there are wind farms on properties where setbacks are greater than 1,200 feet. I’m just concerned that it’s been represented in such a way that it’s sorta like, ‘You do it this way, or you don’t do it at all.’”

 

Unable to make its way through the entire 15-page proposed ordinance, the committee adjourned after 3-1/2 hours, but will take up the remaining points Sept. 23 with the intention of presenting the final product to the county board the following night.

 

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the image below to see Wisconsin homes in a wind farm with a 1000 foot setback. This wind farm was approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Recently passed legislation now gives them full authority in siting wind turbines in our state. Local government will have now have little if any power at all when it comes to siting turbines in their own communities.


Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 12:15PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off

9/21/09 Wisconsin Home For Sale: Must like wind turbine noise and shadow flicker AND What's that they say about sausage and law? AND What has similar legislation brought to Wisconsin?

Home For Sale near the Town of Byron Winter 2009

CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS" FEATURE: "Birds caught in wind farm push: Bird deaths present problem at wind farms.

Landowners say turbines have hurt their property values

By Colleen Kottke
The Reporter ckottke@fdlreporter.com

In the years since the Forward Wind Energy Center came on line, "For Sale" signs have popped up all over Gerry Meyer's rural neighborhood in the town of Byron.

"There's about six homes that are still for sale," said Meyer, who has five towering turbines within three-quarters of a mile of his home on County Trunk Y south of Fond du Lac.

Meyer is convinced that the aesthetically displeasing look of the 400-foot turbines and subsequent ill effects experienced by nearby residents from the noise, vibration and light-flicker has caused housing values to plummet.

A just-released study commissioned by wind-power opponents concurs, saying that property values have fallen at least 19 percent for properties located near the We Energies wind farm in Fond du Lac County and 12 percent for those located near Invenergy's Forward Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.

The study by Appraisal Group One was commissioned by a Calumet County affiliate of the state Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Steward, a group fighting a We Energies wind farm project in Columbia County.

'Quite a reach'

Brian Manthey, a spokesman for We Energies, said the report failed to make accurate comparisons in properties used to track declining values.

"They compared subdivision and lake view lots when the properties in our wind farm area were considered agricultural lots back in 2006. Ultimately, they figured in the sale of four lots, which is tough to draw any comparisons when using such a small scale," said Manthey, who described the report's findings as "quite a reach."

Since construction of the 88-turbine project in the Blue Sky Green Field project in the towns of Calumet and Marshfield, Manthey said 12 homes have been sold; some homes sold above assessed value while others sold below fair market values. Manthey said the report is misleading in that it doesn't take into consideration other factors impacting property values.

"The economy and the housing market collapse have really turned everything on its head," Manthey said. "Those kinds of things aren't just factors but a dominant force in how property values are measured and what effect it has on the selling and purchasing of homes — not just the proximity of wind turbines."

Frank Adashun, co-owner of Adashun Jones in Fond du Lac and director of the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, said the property value percentages presented in the report are unproven.

"In my opinion, those numbers cannot be quantified with the statistics available right now through the multiple listing service of the RANW because there haven't been the sales to prove it," Adashun said. "There is no way to gauge the direct impact that wind turbines have on sales and property values unless you compare sales, and there hasn't been enough to provide a percentage or deduction."

Smaller pool of buyers

While he is in support of alternative energy, Fond du Lac real estate agent Scott Swick thinks that the close proximity of wind turbines to residential homes may reduce property values.

"They're harder to sell, especially with potential homebuyers that are sensitive to anything that appears to be negative in their backyard," Swick said.

With the economic downturn and high unemployment rates, Swick said there is a smaller pool of home buyers. And those living in the shadow of the wind turbines may be motivated enough to reduce their selling price just to secure a sale.

"If the housing market started to increase and yet the prices remained depressed in the area of the wind turbines, it would be a better indicator that the turbines were having a direct impact," Swick said "But it's hard to isolate one element when there are so many elements involved in a declining market."

Tony and Liv Moyer, who built their dream home out in the country in the town of Empire, have no doubts that their home would sell at a loss. Their Pine Road home is located within the Alliant Energy Cedar Ridge Wind Farm.

"When you have 400-foot turbines on all sides of your house, and you can't even open your windows at night because of the noise, it definitely has an impact on our property value," Moyer said.

Adashun said wind turbines are a distraction and concern for many home buyers due to the visual impact, noise and flashing red lights at night.

"But on the other hand, we've sold many homes near wind turbines. You just have to find a buyer that doesn't have any concerns with the wind farm," Adashun said.


NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: They say the two things you never want to see being made are sausage and law.

For those of you who wish to look into the meat grinder we give you....

The History of Senate Bill 185

SENATE BILL 185 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-185.pdf>                                         LC Amendment Memo <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/lc_amdt/sb185.pdf>
An Act to renumber and amend 66.0401 (1); to amend 66.0401 (2) and
66.0403 (1) (m); to repeal and recreate 196.378 (4) (title); and to
create 66.0401 (1e), 66.0401 (3), 66.0401 (4), 66.0401 (5), 66.0401 (6),
196.378 (4g) and 196.491 (3) (dg) of the statutes; relating to:
regulation of wind energy systems and granting rule-making authority.
(FE)
2009
   05-04.  S. Introduced by Senators Plale, Hopper, Hansen, Holperin,
                Kreitlow, Taylor, Sullivan, Miller, Risser, Wirch and
                Coggs; cosponsored by Representatives Soletski,
                Montgomery, Parisi, Black, Mason, Spanbauer, Hilgenberg,
                Roys, Townsend, Richards, Suder, Honadel, Pocan, Clark,
                Wood, Smith, Pasch, Vruwink, Molepske Jr. and Stone.
   05-04.  S. Read first time and referred to committee on Commerce,
                Utilities, Energy, and Rail  ............................ 154
   05-12.  S. Public hearing held.
   05-12.  S. Fiscal estimate received <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/fe/SB-185fe.pdf> .
   08-04.  S. Executive action taken.
   08-05.  S. Report introduction of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1.pdf>
                recommended by committee on Commerce, Utilities,
                Energy, and Rail, Ayes 7, Noes 0 ........................ 256
   08-05.  S. Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1-SA1.pdf>  to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by
                committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail,
                Ayes 7, Noes 0 .......................................... 256
   08-05.  S. Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1-SA2.pdf>  to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by
                committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail,
                Ayes 7, Noes 0 .......................................... 256
   08-05.  S. Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 3 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1-SA3.pdf>  to Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by
                committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail,
                Ayes 7, Noes 0 .......................................... 256
   08-05.  S. Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1.pdf>
                recommended by committee on Commerce, Utilities,
                Energy, and Rail, Ayes 7, Noes 0 ........................ 256
   08-05.  S. Report passage as amended recommended by committee on
                Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail, Ayes 6, Noes
                1 ....................................................... 256
   08-05.  S. Available for scheduling.
   08-17.  S. LRB correction (Senate Substitute Amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1.pdf> )
                 ........................................................ 264
   09-08.  S. Placed on calendar 9-15-2009 by committee on Senate
                Organization  ........................................... 299
   09-14.  S. Senate substitute amendment 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA2.pdf>  offered by Senator Plale.
   09-15.  S. Senator Lassa added as a coauthor.
   09-15.  S. Read a second time.
   09-15.  S. Senate substitute amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA1.pdf>  laid on table.
   09-15.  S. Senate substitute amendment 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA2.pdf>  adopted .
   09-15.  S. Senate substitute amendment 3 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA3.pdf>  offered by Senator
                Schultz.
   09-15.  S. Senate substitute amendment 3 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-SSA3.pdf>  withdrawn and returned
                to author.
   09-15.  S. Ordered to a third reading.
   09-15.  S. Rules suspended.
   09-15.  S. Read a third time and passed, Ayes 23, Noes 9 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/sv0095.pdf>
                ...........
   09-15.  S. Ordered immediately messaged.
   09-16.  A. Received from Senate.
   09-16.  A. Read.
   09-16.  A. Rules suspended to withdraw from Senate message and
                place on calendar 9-16-2009.
   09-16.  A. Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up.
   09-16.  A. Read a second time.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA1.pdf>  offered by Representative Ripp.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 1 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA1.pdf>  withdrawn and returned to author.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA2.pdf>  offered by Representative Davis.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA2.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 50, Noes 47 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0280.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 3 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA3.pdf>  offered by Representative Davis.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 3 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA3.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 56, Noes 42 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0281.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 4 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA4.pdf>  offered by Representative Davis.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 4 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA4.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 50, Noes 48 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0282.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 5 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA5.pdf>  offered by Representatives
                Huebsch and Ripp.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 5 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA5.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 50, Noes 48 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0283.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 6 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA6.pdf>  offered by Representatives
                Huebsch and Ripp.
   09-16.  A. Refused to table Assembly amendment 6 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA6.pdf> , Ayes 49, Noes <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0284.pdf>
                49 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0284.pdf>  ............
   09-16.  A. Refused to adopt Assembly amendment 6 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA6.pdf> , Ayes 49, Noes <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0285.pdf>
                49 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0285.pdf>  ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 7 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA7.pdf>  offered by Representative Wood.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 7 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA7.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 62, Noes 36 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0286.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 8 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA8.pdf>  offered by Representative Krusick.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 8 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA8.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 61, Noes 37 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0287.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 9 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA9.pdf>  offered by Representatives
                Krusick and Ballweg.
   09-16.  A. Assembly amendment 9 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB185-AA9.pdf>  laid on table, Ayes 50, Noes 48 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0288.pdf>
                ............
   09-16.  A. Ordered to a third reading.
   09-16.  A. Rules suspended.
   09-16.  A. Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 65, Noes 31, <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0289.pdf>
                Paired 2 <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/votes/av0289.pdf>  ............
   09-16.  A. Ordered immediately messaged.


Search for another history <http://www.legis.state.wi.us/billtext.html>

<http://www.legis.state.wi.us/billtrack.html> Back to Legislation Page

<http://www.legis.state.wi.us/index.htm>
  Click to visit Legislature Home Page
If you live in rural Wisconsin, YOU COULD ALREADY BE A WEINER!!!

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The turbine siting legislation that was passed last week was frequently compared to the livestock siting legislation that also allowed big money interests to skip over local goverment control bringing us....

September 18, 2009

Health Ills Abound as Farm Runoff Fouls Wells

 

New York Times

September 17th, 2009

MORRISON, Wis. — All it took was an early thaw for the drinking water here to become unsafe.

There are 41,000 dairy cows in Brown County, which includes Morrison, and they produce more than 260 million gallons of manure each year, much of which is spread on nearby grain fields. Other farmers receive fees to cover their land with slaughterhouse waste and treated sewage.

In measured amounts, that waste acts as fertilizer. But if the amounts are excessive, bacteria and chemicals can flow into the ground and contaminate residents’ tap water.

In Morrison, more than 100 wells were polluted by agricultural runoff within a few months, according to local officials. As parasites and bacteria seeped into drinking water, residents suffered from chronic diarrhea, stomach illnesses and severe ear infections.

“Sometimes it smells like a barn coming out of the faucet,” said Lisa Barnard, who lives a few towns over, and just 15 miles from the city of Green Bay.

Tests of her water showed it contained E. coli, coliform bacteria and other contaminants found in manure. Last year, her 5-year-old son developed ear infections that eventually required an operation. Her doctor told her they were most likely caused by bathing in polluted water, she said.

Yet runoff from all but the largest farms is essentially unregulated by many of the federal laws intended to prevent pollution and protect drinking water sources. The Clean Water Act of 1972 largely regulates only chemicals or contaminants that move through pipes or ditches, which means it does not typically apply to waste that is sprayed on a field and seeps into groundwater.

As a result, many of the agricultural pollutants that contaminate drinking water sources are often subject only to state or county regulations. And those laws have failed to protect some residents living nearby.

To address this problem, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has created special rules for the biggest farms, like those with at least 700 cows.

But thousands of large animal feedlots that should be regulated by those rules are effectively ignored because farmers never file paperwork, E.P.A. officials say.

And regulations passed during the administration of President George W. Bush allow many of those farms to self-certify that they will not pollute, and thereby largely escape regulation.

In a statement, the E.P.A. wrote that officials were working closely with the Agriculture Department and other federal agencies to reduce pollution and bring large farms into compliance.

Agricultural runoff is the single largest source of water pollution in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the E.P.A. An estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from waterborne parasites, viruses or bacteria, including those stemming from human and animal waste, according to a study published last year in the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

The problem is not limited to Wisconsin. In California, up to 15 percent of wells in agricultural areas exceed a federal contaminant threshold, according to studies. Major waterways like the Chesapeake Bay have been seriously damaged by agricultural pollution, according to government reports.

In Arkansas and Maryland, residents have accused chicken farm owners of polluting drinking water. In 2005, Oklahoma’s attorney general sued 13 poultry companies, claiming they had damaged one of the state’s most important watersheds.

It is often difficult to definitively link a specific instance of disease to one particular cause, like water pollution. Even when tests show that drinking water is polluted, it can be hard to pinpoint the source of the contamination.

Despite such caveats, regulators in Brown County say they believe that manure has contaminated tap water, making residents ill.

“One cow produces as much waste as 18 people,” said Bill Hafs, a county official who has lobbied the state Legislature for stricter waste rules.

“There just isn’t enough land to absorb that much manure, but we don’t have laws to force people to stop,” he added.

In Brown County, part of one of the nation’s largest milk-producing regions, agriculture brings in $3 billion a year. But the dairies collectively also create as much as a million gallons of waste each day. Many cows are fed a high-protein diet, which creates a more liquid manure that is easier to spray on fields.

In 2006, an unusually early thaw in Brown County melted frozen fields, including some that were covered in manure. Within days, according to a county study, more than 100 wells were contaminated with coliform bacteria, E. coli, or nitrates — byproducts of manure or other fertilizers.

“Land application requirements in place at that time were not sufficiently designed or monitored to prevent the pollution of wells,” one official wrote.

Some residents did not realize that their water was contaminated until their neighbors fell ill, which prompted them to test their own water.

“We were terrified,” said Aleisha Petri, whose water was polluted for months, until her husband dumped enough bleach in the well to kill the contaminants. Neighbors spent thousands of dollars digging new wells.

At a town hall meeting, angry homeowners yelled at dairy owners, some of whom are perceived as among the most wealthy and powerful people in town.

One resident said that he had seen cow organs dumped on a neighboring field, and his dog had dug up animal carcasses and bones.

“More than 30 percent of the wells in one town alone violated basic health standards,” said Mr. Hafs, the Brown County regulator responsible for land and water conservation, in an interview. “It’s obvious we’ve got a problem.”

But dairy owners said it was unfair to blame them for the county’s water problems. They noted that state regulators, in their reports, were unable to definitively establish the source of the 2006 contamination.

One of those farmers, Dan Natzke, owns Wayside Dairy, one of the largest farms around here. Just a few decades ago, it had just 60 cows. Today, its 1,400 animals live in enormous barns and are milked by suction pumps.

In June, Mr. Natzke explained to visiting kindergarteners that his cows produced 1.5 million gallons of manure a month. The dairy owns 1,000 acres and rents another 1,800 acres to dispose of that waste and grow crops to feed the cows.

“Where does the poop go?” one boy asked. “And what happens to the cow when it gets old?”

“The waste helps grow food,” Mr. Natzke replied. “And that’s what the cow becomes, too.”

His farm abides by dozens of state laws, Mr. Natzke said.

“All of our waste management is reviewed by our agronomist and by the state’s regulators,” he added. “We follow all the rules.”

But records show that his farm was fined $56,000 last October for spreading excessive waste. Mr. Natzke declined to comment.

Many environmental advocates argue that agricultural pollution will be reduced only through stronger federal laws. Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, has recently ordered an increase in enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, has said that clean water is a priority, and President Obama promised in campaign speeches to regulate water pollution from livestock.

But Congress has not created many new rules on the topic and, as a result, officials say their powers remain limited.

Part of the problem, according to data collected from the E.P.A. and every state, is that environmental agencies are already overtaxed. And it is unclear how to design effective laws, say regulators, including Ms. Jackson, who was confirmed to head the E.P.A. in January.

To fix the problem of agricultural runoff, “I don’t think there’s a solution in my head yet that I could say, right now, write this piece of legislation, this will get it done,” Ms. Jackson said in an interview.

She added that “the challenge now is for E.P.A. and Congress to develop solutions that represent the next step in protecting our nation’s waters and people’s health.”

A potential solution, regulators say, is to find new uses for manure. In Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle has financed projects to use farm waste to generate electricity.

But environmentalists and some lawmakers say real change will occur only when Congress passes laws giving the E.P.A. broad powers to regulate farms. Tougher statutes should permit drastic steps — like shutting down farms or blocking expansion — when watersheds become threatened, they argue.

However, a powerful farm lobby has blocked previous environmental efforts on Capital Hill. Even when state legislatures have acted, they have often encountered unexpected difficulties.

After Brown County’s wells became polluted, for instance, Wisconsin created new rules prohibiting farmers in many areas from spraying manure during winter, and creating additional requirements for large dairies.

But agriculture is among the state’s most powerful industries. After intense lobbying, the farmers’ association won a provision requiring the state often to finance up to 70 percent of the cost of following the new regulations. Unless regulators pay, some farmers do not have to comply.

In a statement, Adam Collins, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, said farmers can only apply waste to fields “according to a nutrient management plan, which, among other things, requires that manure runoff be minimized.”

When there is evidence that a farm has “contaminated a water source, we can and do take enforcement action,” he wrote.

“Wisconsin has a long history of continuously working to improve water quality and a strong reputation nationally for our clean water efforts,” he added. “Approximately 800,000 private drinking water wells serve rural Wisconsin residents. The vast majority of wells provide safe drinking water.”

But anger in some towns remains. At the elementary school a few miles from Mr. Natzke’s dairy, there are signs above drinking fountains warning that the water may be dangerous for infants.

“I go to church with the Natzkes,” said Joel Reetz, who spent $16,000 digging a deeper well after he learned his water was polluted. “Our kid goes to school with their kids. It puts us in a terrible position, because everyone knows each other.

“But what’s happening to this town isn’t right,” he said.

 

Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:16AM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd | Comments Off