MORE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Thank you to all who are sharing their letters to the Wisconsin State Journal with us. We're happy to post them here. Check back as we'll be adding them as the come in.

If you'd like to share your letter to WSJ (CONTACT US BY CLICKING HERE)

GIVE US BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY

Sustainable energy is a necessary and laudable goal but the WSJ should present both sides of the wind controversy, instead of portraying opponents as hysterical NIMBYs and doing Big Wind’s bidding by printing pictures of turbines in pastoral settings like the one that occupied the front page of the Opinion section last Sunday.

Your picture shows an industrial wind operation in Montfort which I believe has an 1800 foot setback. It would be nice for you to show the homes with 1000’ set-backs like at Byron near Brownsville. Anyone viewing those looming giants can only say “Oh my God”.

Although titled the “Public Service Commission”, the PSC is hardly a watchdog for the public. It seems to operate instead as a rubber stamp for the Governor and the energy industry. This is evidenced by the 1000 foot set-back, approved by the PSC and provided by a Florida development company with a goal of siting as many turbines as possible. What this does to those living too close to turbines is not their concern.

Before there was Big Wind, there was Big Oil and Big Tobacco. We are still discovering the collateral damage and unintended consequences of those industries.

Randy Krause

Poynette, Wisconsin

WIND TOWERS SHOULD NOT BE SITED IN POPULATED AREAS

Dear Editor.

I am writing in response to your May 16 editorial "A Win for Wind Power in Wisconsin".

My wife and I, along with several hundred others, attended the public hearing on SB 185/AB 256. I waited nine hours to finally be able to testify at 8:00 PM in opposition to the proposed legislation.

I am appalled by your insensitive and uninformed attitude that opposition to wind energy systems is due to "alarming concerns, commonly based in misinformation".

I live near the Forward Wind Project in Dodge County. We had to fight the project at great cost to prevent wind towers from being sited on the Horicon Ledge adjacent to the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge.

The only concession we won was that the project was required to have a two mile setback from the Horicon Marsh (we asked for four miles), instead of the one mile the company wanted.

Several friends who now live in the project area (not by their choice) are now subjected to constant noise and frequent blade flicker. It is affecting their health, depreciated their property value and destroyed the aesthetic quality of the rural countryside.

What we have learned, but what proponents of wind energy ignore, is that wind towers should not be sited in populated areas.

The negative effects of wind towers are downplayed and grossly misrepresented by the wind companies and the Public Service Commission.

Your editorial states that local governments are not capable of making informed decisions. Just the opposite. Local governments are becoming informed.

Trempeleau County, Calumet County, the Town of Union (in Rock County) and others have spent many months thoroughly researching wind energy and then wisely adopted restrictive ordinances requiring greater setbacks of turbines from residences and property lines.

With greater setbacks to protect health, wind towers can not be sited in populated areas.

Now the wind companies want the Public Services Commission to set siting standards that will overrule the local ordinances so that they can build wind energy systems wherever they want, irregardless of the effects on people and the landscape.

This legislation would give siting authority for small projects to the PSC, which is in the pocket of the utilities.

The wind companies argued that we are losing jobs and sending money to other states for electricity, so therefore we should build wind towers wherever the wind companies want.

Are we going to trade temporary construction jobs for the long term health of our rural residents?

It is easy for those who don't live in wind project areas to say we should promote wind energy in Wisconsin. They don't have to live with the effects of the wind towers.

Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and the open prairie states, where there is low population, is the appropriate place to build wind energy systems.

I urge your readers to become truly informed about wind energy. I urge them to oppose legislation that will take away local authority to protect their residents.

The old windmills may have been quaint, but monsterous 400-foot wind towers (as tall as a 40 story building) covering the countryside for miles are not.

We currently have only 300+ wind towers in Wisconsin. It will take 12,000 to 14,000 wind towers to meet the state alternative energy goal.

Do your readers want our rural landscape to look like an industrial site? Energy conservation in Wisconsin — not windmills — is the answer.


James Congdon
Horicon, WI

THE HIDDEN PRICE OF WIND POWER

Wind Siting Reform has nothing to do with one’s opinion of wind power as a renewable energy source.

In order for industrial wind turbines to be massively installed in WI there had to be a legislative mandate and obscene federal subsidies. It was not because of the free market system or public demand.

For utility companies to comply with the mandate, quantities of 400 feet tall or more industrial wind turbines can only be installed if:

• They are located 1000 feet or less from a WI resident’s home.
  
  Property rights are taken away from non participating landowners.
  
  Health effects from exposure to living next to an electrical plant that has rotating blades that span 256 feet or more are completely ignored or treated with indifference.
  
  There isn’t any government regulation for an operating wind farm.
  
  There isn’t any government procedure for complaint resolution.
  
  There isn’t any type of accountability for production of energy.
  
  Elected officials have the intrinsic responsibility to protect public health, safety and welfare.
  
  Cathy Bembinster
  Evansville, Wisconsin

WHERE ARE THE HOUSES?

"Your picture in last Sunday’s Opinion section portrayed a peaceful display of wind turbines but where are the houses? If you’re endorsing a bill that will allow the PSC to site wind turbines 1,000 feet from a residence, you should show houses in the picture so people in our state will know what they are in for.

You say concern about problems with wind turbines are commonly based on misinformation. What misinformation are you referring to? Have you visited or spoken to anyone who lives within a PSC-approved wind industrial project? Were you at the 8 hour public hearing where so many who are having trouble with turbines gave testimony? If not, could your support for this bill be based on misinformation?

You cannot understand the health and safety impacts of poorly sited wind turbines without listening to the people who are living with them. If safe siting cannot be accomplished within an area, turbines must not be forced upon us by the PSC so the state can reach its renewable energy goal.
Tax-payers are footing the $3.5 million bill per turbine. They are about 27% efficient. In other words, 73% inefficient. Conservation and efficiency is the answer.

From Lori McIlrath

Town of Arlington,

Columbia County Wisconsin

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE SUNSHINE

Can we please stop the lame editorials parroting the wind industry lobbyists?

I was at the hearing on May 12th. People living in PSCW approved industrial wind generating facilities with 1000 foot setbacks testified, and said they were lied to by the wind industry, and that the 400 foot tall wind turbines are noisier than the wind developers claimed, and that they are suffering.

The utilities want the wind turbines, because they are the cheapest, least effective, way to reach a badly formulated RPS, and keeps them burning coal. Business as usual, and the taxpayers pick up the bill for inefficient harmful low benefit infrastructure.

Solar is the answer. We all know this. Solar can be installed on existing infrastructure (roof tops, parking lots, along noisy highways, and even power poles!), creates more and varied jobs, won't destroy our roads or our sleep, and gives us the security of daily generation even if the grid goes down.

Wind vampires hate sun. If solar is unfeasible, why did WPPI install PV panels at it headquarters? Why is WDOT using solar on its construction alert signage? Why is solar feasible and reliable enough for New Jersey and Germany, but not for Wisconsin?

From Kevin Kawula

Town of Spring Valley

Rock County, Wisconsin

LIVING WITH PSC-SETBACKS

I am a resident of the Cedar Ridge Wind farm in Fond Du Lac County. I want you to know the turbines make a lot more noise than we were told. Developers said they would be no louder than a refrigerator.

I really do not know much about noise levels but what is the noise level of a commercial jet coming through the middle of your house at 2:00 am in the morning?

The noise is extremely loud and actually shakes the whole house. It wakes the whole family up at night. It also spooks our horses so bad that we can't even ride them on our trails anymore. Our dogs won't even come out of there kennel because there afraid of the noise. As for the shadow flicker it is terrible. It affects all of my 100 acres. Yes all 100 acres. That is my home.

I’ve complained about it and gotten the run-around. I am sick and tired of being lied to. This bill will make the entire state subject to the same PSC setbacks and noise levels that are causing so much trouble for my family. We need help here and we’re not getting it.

From Daniel Haas

Town of Eden

Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin

WIN FOR WIND POWER IS THE LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL

Dear Editor;

Shame on you. “Hodgepodge. Mixmaster. Barrier. Threat.” You incite your readership in “A Win For Wind Power in Wisconsin ” by use of inflammatory and unsubstantiated allegations.

You make broad accusations without explaining the issue. You imply that a minority of citizens stands in the way of environmental progress.

What you fail to mention is that a group of intelligent, articulate and very well- educated leaders within their own communities have challenged the legislature to re-think proposed legislation which provides broad power to the PSC to regulate industrial wind turbine sitings.

These enormous turbines are potentially dangerous to health and safety and need to be sited a safe distance from human habitation. The debate is primarily over what that safe distance should be. Credible well-researched studies were brought to the legislative hearing to which you refer. Intelligent and well-reasoned testimony was given.

The merits of wind power are not the issue. The issue is who in the state should have power to wield when siting these monsters: a state regulatory body or the citizens who will live near them and be most affected. Get your story straight!

From Janet Kassel

Town of Janesville

Rock County, Wisconsin

From the Wisconsin State Journal Opinion Page [source]

Should the state overhaul regulations for wind farms?

These letters are in response to a WSJ editorial endorsing a bill which would override existing wind ordinances and strip local government of its say in where and how industrial wind farms will be sited in their districts.

These are some of the 86 turbines which make up the wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County Photo By Gerry Meyer, who lives with the noise from six turbines near his home, especially turbine #4 located 1560 feet from his door.

Click here to download the bill

Click here to read testimony from the May 12 hearing on the bill

Scott MilfredClick here to read Better Plan's interchange with Scott Milfred, editor of the WSJ editorial page, regarding what the WSJ's support of this bill is based on, his use of the word NIMBY and, to his credit, his willingness to allow us to share our interchange, for which we are grateful.

Windmills will clutter Wisconsin's landscape

Look again at the picture on the front page of last Sunday's Opinion section. Do we really want windmills on every acre of land in Wisconsin to obstruct the beautiful sunrise and sunsets we have?

Should this be the answer to the perceived, man-made but unproven "science" of global climate change? Let's also consider the birds that are killed by these things. A picture is truly worth a thousand words in this case.

-- Robert Jensen, Waunakee

Continue to work with local governments

The wind industry enjoyed exceptional growth last year. While governments, businesses and families are experiencing major budget shortfalls, the wind industry wants more from taxpayers and ratepayers. This industry is being driven by greed.

The unprecedented growth in wind capacity in 2008 indicates no need for siting reform. Wind developers must continue to work with local governments for approval of wind turbine projects.

A one-size-fits-all rule developed by the Public Service Commission will not adequately address the diverse land use in Wisconsin. Only local control of land use can protect the health and safety of residents, agricultural activity and property rights.

The process vegetable business, a $750 million industry that employs thousands, will be in serious jeopardy if growers are unable to use pesticides in a timely manner with aerial application. It was made clear at one hearing that Wisconsin pilots will not fly inside or half a mile downwind of a turbine facility.

This hysterical approach to wind development by advocates and developers is going to harm Wisconsin's citizens and our economy.

-- Jim Bembinster, Evansville

Make it easier to build wind farms

Wind farm regulations should be reformed.

Time is against us. We have to be able to build more -- even smaller wind farms. Thirty years ago or so, we were allowed to build a wind charger on our farm, business or house to save electricity and put some back in the power system.

I think ethanol plants should have wind farms to supply their power needs and maybe the areas they are in. If given more flexibility, there could be wind farms for housing developments or big farm operations.

-- Larry Zimmerman, New Lisbon

Our wise leaders want them - in your backyard

Sunday's editorial argued that authority regarding wind power installations ought to be taken from local governments and given to the state. The reason for this is that locals may not want wind farms in their backyard and they should be governed by Smart People Who Know Better What Is Good For Them.

This makes sense, particularly if you look at the way the power centers in Madison and Milwaukee have always treated the rest of the state. We don't want wind farms where they would obscure the view of the Capitol, and who cares about the yokels in, say, Kekoskee?

We should take it a step further and strip the states of any authority, giving it entirely to Washington. Folks there know full well that nobody counts outside of the East and West coasts.

All wind farms (which still appear to have problems actually being effective purveyors of power) could all be stacked in meaningless areas like Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Wyoming, where nobody of any importance lives.

If it were left to Washington, maybe we'd even have wind farms in Downtown Madison. That'd be at least a Pyrrhic victory for the folks in Iron Ridge.

-- Dave Marohl, Sun Prairie

Unbiased research essential before reform

If I thought for a minute that Wisconsin had my best interest at heart, I would be all for state control of wind farms. But that is not the case.

When the primary source of information for the control of wind farms comes from the wind farm industry, you can bet that it is skewed to the benefit of the wind farm industry. The regulations are written such that local governments have to base any exceptions on scientifically-defendable facts, but the regulations aren't based on science.

When a local government entity looked into the proposed wind farm regulations, they found little to no research being used for the basis of how far back a turbine should be from homes and other health-related concerns.

The wind industry has been told "no" by local governments, so the industry went to state government and cried a river of tears, just like the farm industry did to get the livestock facility (factory farms) siting regulations passed.

If the State Journal did some digging to find the facts, I think the paper's editorial board would have come to a different conclusion.

-- Steve Oakeson, Evansville

Consider adjacent land values, quality of life

Regarding your wind farm editorial, I am in favor of the state setting standards for the placement of wind turbines, provided that two things are given due consideration:

• The quality of life of those living near the placements.

• The impact on land values at and near the placement sites.

My son-in-law is involved with this same question in Illinois, and his property is in danger of being devalued.

-- Gerald McConoughey, Richland Center

Need real debate on wind's pros and cons

Your editorial makes the assumption, I think falsely, that wind power makes sense both economically and esthetically for Wisconsin, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with your position as misinformed.

There are many problems with wind power. One big technical problem with wind is that it is unreliable -- the wind does not always blow with sufficient velocity to generate power and, as a result, fossil fuel or nuclear power plants need to be kept on line to provide power when wind power is unavailable.

So no fossil fuel power plants are idled by investing in wind, which is exactly what happened in Denmark, where massive investments in wind have been made.

And environmentally, windmills are ugly and despoil the landscape as they slowly rust in the sunset.

I would like to see as a true debate on the merits of wind-generated power. Instead of editorials that take a position but do nothing to inform, there should be real discussion pro and con.

-- Dennis G. Reinen, Lodi

Property owners should consider small turbines

Regarding wind power, those who say they want to bring jobs and money to Wisconsin typically ignore the role that individual property owners could have, while others go well beyond public health and safety in developing wind turbine ordinances, including "small" turbines. The only standard that warrants attention is public health and safety.

A mere four-foot square piece of property and a bit of wind are all that is needed to generate income that covers use, meets needs and provides some benefit to others. Most of the smaller wind turbines sold and installed by our company require winds of only 4.5 to 10 mph to generate maximum outputs. Given that the state's wind speed average is 16 mph, even a 30 kw or 50 kw turbine, on a pole 40 feet to 80 feet in height, can operate efficiently.

And the return on such an investment is phenomenal. The federal income tax credit is 30 percent of project cost, plus accelerated depreciation of 50 percent the first year.

However, this federal money will not come if local regulations and moratoriums stand in the way of individual property owners who want to act.

-- David J. Gonzalez, CEO, Planet Turbine, Reedsburg

Kudos to towns with turbine ordinances

I was appalled by the State Journal's insensitive and uninformed attitude that opposition to wind energy systems is due to "alarming concerns, commonly based in misinformation."

Research has shown that wind turbines should not be sited in populated areas. Turbine noise and blade flicker affect the health of people living near them, depreciate property value and destroy the aesthetic quality of the rural countryside.

Several Wisconsin counties and towns thoroughly researched wind energy and wisely adopted ordinances requiring greater distance between turbines and residences as well as property lines to protect the health of nearby residents.

The wind companies now want the Public Services Commission to set siting standards that will overrule local ordinances so they can build wind energy systems wherever they want, regardless of the effects on people and the landscape. The wind companies are only interested in profits.

Why is Gov. Jim Doyle trying to force wind turbines on rural residents? The place to build them is in low population states that want them. Get informed. Energy conservation in Wisconsin -- not wind turbines -- is the answer.

-- James Congdon, Horicon

Wind farm resident calls it 'a nightmare'

I live in the Public Service Commission-approved Invenergy wind farm in Fond du Lac County, and it's a nightmare. Allowing turbines 1,000 feet from homes, 440 feet from property lines and a 50-decibel sound limit is irresponsible and was obtained with no scientific data regarding health and safety.

Health effects are numerous: interrupted sleep, sleep deprivation, headaches, ringing and buzzing in the ears, anxiety, anger, loss of balance, lack of motivation, nausea, light-headedness, loss of memory, fatigue, chest pains and weight gain due to chemical imbalance, to name a few.

It's not just the audible noise. Most significant is the low frequency noise emitted by the 400-foot industrial wind turbines. And shadow flicker is a major issue for many residents.

Those who drive to a wind farm and say they don't hear anything are showing ignorance. They do not live here. Property values plummet. Some realtors tell residents they will not market a home that won't sell anyway.

The siting bill by Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, needs to be defeated, and a moratorium needs to be in place until all health issues are remedied. Get educated at
www.betterplan.squarespace.com.

-- Gerry Meyer, Brownsville

Will wind industry be sued like tobacco firms?

I can tell you -- because I'm living it -- that turbines are being sited too close to people's homes.

The shadow flicker in the house is sickening, the noise is unbearable and the constant vibrations we are exposed to are unhealthy.

And the diminishment of people's hard-earned assets because of the "loss of saleability," as the real estate agents put it, is a crime.

I see the day when enough of this information has been exposed and the turbine industries are sued like the tobacco industry was for the damage they have done to innocent victims.

-- Sandy Vercauteren, Byron

“No resident should have to live under such conditions”: Wind Turbine Setback Committee Report (Richmondville NY)

[SOURCE -This article was originally posted on windturbinesyndrom.com on 5/21/09]

Photo of Ripley (Ontario), much like the Tug Hill Plateau, NY

“After lunch we met with Rick Beyer, an outspoken opponent of the wind farm, whose residence is among the towers. He originally signed on as a participant, but quickly changed his mind after suffering the effects of the noise.

“Roy Bilby was particularly interested in the reports about the low frequency noise being accentuated inside residences, and asked Mr. Beyer if he would mind if we went inside his house to experience the noise. He agreed and, once inside, we all concurred that no resident should have to live under such conditions”(from the Report 5-14-09).

Windturbinesyndrom.com Editor’s note. On April 28, 2009, the Wind Turbine Setback Committee for the Town of Richmondville (NY) visited the Tug Hill (NY) wind turbines, built, as they all are, among the homes of Tug Hill.

Committee members had heard and readstories (on websites like this one) of people suffering from turbine noiseand vibration, and shadow flicker. They wanted to “see for themselves,” to borrow the phrase used by wind developers who likewise invite people to visit an operating wind farm.

The difference this time is that the trip had not been arranged by a wind developer; committee members thus knew that no adjustments had been made to the turbines in anticipation of their visit. Second, the weather unexpectedly changed from being a bright sunny and calm day to a windy rainy day. The wind direction abruptly changed to a direction conducive to noise & vibration. Then things got interesting.

The following is the full report of that informativeexperience, presented by the committee to the Richmondville town board on May 14, 2009. Click here for a copy of the original report, which has been lightly edited, below, for typos, grammar, and clarification.

Wind Turbine Setback Committee Report to the Richmondville (NY)Town Board

·
May 14, 2009

In March 2009 the Richmondville (NY) Town Board charged the Wind Turbine Setback Committee to revisit the setback issue in order to ascertain whether or not there had been any new developments that might alter the original setback recommendations.

Only four of the original seven-member committee were willing to study the matter again, Roy Bilby, William Lancaster, Robert Reed, and Joan Sondergaard.

Richmondville (red teardrop, A). Tug Hill Plateau (red star)

At the first meeting of the committee, Roy Bilby voiced a desire to re-visit the Tug Hill (NY) wind farm once again in order to most definitely confirm the validity of the noise complaints that had been made in many reports and from multiple sources. The rest of the committee concurred, and it was decided that Bill Lancaster would do some research with individuals living in the area as to what weather conditions would demonstrate the legitimacy of the complaints.

It was deemed that the weather forecast for Tuesday, April 28th, looked good, and the trip was planned. Due to the short notice, Bob Reed was unable to make the trip, but the remaining three members decided to go.

The three members arrived at the wind farm at approximately 9AM and spent about one and1/4 hours traveling through the maze of roads that intertwine between the wind towers. Repeated stops were made where we stopped the car, shut off the engine, and got out of the car to listen to the turbines from multiple vantage points, distances, and groupings of the turbines.

When we first arrived, there was a fairly light to moderate wind blowing from the SE and the sun was shining. Around 11:30AM, while talking to Gordon Yancey, a tavern owner [Flatrock Inn] who supports Green Power but has been very vocal against the siting of turbines too close to residential areas, the wind direction changed to North/Northwest with the arrival of a weather front, and it started to rain.

Gordon Yancey, proprietor of the Flatrock Inn, Tug Hill Plateau (NY)

»Sound«

(Note: Two Residents stated that it was too bad that we weren’t there when the sound was loudest. One stated that on a scale of 1 to 1 0 for sound, that particular day was a 4.)

The large blades on the turbines definitely generated sound, which fluctuated between quiet, to quite loud when standing at the same location and depending on the velocity of the wind, which fluctuated continually in short periods of time. The reported “whoosh” to a “thumping” was witnessed by all of us throughout the day.

We verified that the sound was often greater the farther away from the tower we moved, as had been reported by others in the literature. Roy stood directly under the tower, and as he walked back to where we were, he stated that the sound definitely grew louder. Later, when standing at one spot, we found that the noise generated by towers about 1500 feet to 2000 feet was much louder than the one just over 1000 feet.

One of the most disturbing phenomena was the sound resulting from multiple towers, producing sound out of synchrony, which was very definitely annoying.

We also heard mechanical noise emanating from several towers that obviously needed repair, and observed that some were either under repair or having routine maintenance.

We had read about complaints of the different sounds emanating from turbines, but had never heard any complaints about the whistling sounds that we witnessed on Tug Hill. The blades of a few made annoying whistling sounds that could be heard at some distance.

Gordon Yancey’s explanation was that the noise is a result of the tips of the blades developing pits and fissures, which cause a change in the aerodynamics of the blade tips passing through the air. The sound [that is] produced results in a whistling sound.

Regardless of the validity of his explanation, this is definitely an added annoyance factor that we had not previously considered. He also stated that most of the turbine blades were being replaced totally or being replaced with new metal tips to remedy the problem.

After lunch we met with Rick Beyer, an outspoken opponent of the wind farm, whose residence is among the towers. He originally signed on as a participant, but quickly changed his mind after suffering the effects of the noise.

Roy Bilby was particularly interested in the reports about the low frequency noise being accentuated inside residences, and asked Mr. Beyer if he would mind if we went inside his house to experience the noise. He agreed and, once inside, we all concurred that no resident should have to live under such conditions.

Mr.Beyer stated that in the winter, when the ice and frozen snow stick to the blades, the noise is multiplied to [such] a degree that it is impossible to hear yourself think. This can last for weeks at a time in the winter. In addition, wet and foggy, damp weather also greatly enhance the noise throughout the year.

Finally, our committee observed that the Tug Hill terrain, a twelve-mile plateau on which the wind farm is situated, is drastically different from the rolling hills and valleys of the Town of Richmondville. The wind industry itself admits that rolling hills and valleys enhance sound generated by wind turbines and, therefore, increased setback distances must be taken into consideration when siting turbines.

»Acid Rain?«

We all noticed brownish stains, below the nacelles, on many of the towers. Joan questioned Gordon Yancy about the stains that we were observing, and if they were a result of the acid rain in the area. He replied that the stains were a result of the leaking of lubricating oils and the antifreeze used in the nacelles.

He stated, “We were told that the nacelles never leaked oil, but if you look at most of the towers, they all have the leaks which are being dispersed against the towers by the fanning of the blades.” Again, we realized that Gordon Yancey is not an advocate for siting these towers too close to residences, but we did feel that this was some important additional information to explore if necessary.

»Radio and Television Interference«

While in Rick Beyer’s home, he told us about the effect the wind turbines had on his TV reception. One minute the picture would be fine, but as a blade passed through the transmission field, the picture would be like a snowfield passing over the screen. Gordon Yancey made the same comments as to the reception at his place of business.

Rick Beyer stated that he is forced to close his curtains because the reflection of the turning blades on the screen coming through the window is like a continual moving mirror in his living room. His son is unable to use his computer without closing heavy curtains to block out the whirling reflection. Mr. Beyer stated that the company offered to mitigate the problem by buying him some new curtains.

While working in his garage, Mr. Beyer can no longer listen to his radio because it fades in and out, as he demonstrated to us, due to the turbine interference. Monthly complaints io the company, which has assured him that they would mitigate the problems, have resulted in nothing being done in over two years.

»Flicker«

While the sun was shining in the morning, we were able witness the flicker effect the large blades made when reflecting off the surrounding wooded areas and also on the open pastures. This took place at a time when the sun was south of overhead, due to the fact that it was still April. We were not there at sunset or sunrise, when the most bothersome effects are purported to be the greatest, due to the angle of the shadows.

»Other Considerations«

Since our original recommendations, made in the fall of 2008, there has been a trend toward increased setbacks, both in the US and in Europe, and a call for more research concerning the public health effects of wind farm siting.

»Setback Committee Recommendation«

As a result of our visit to Tug Hill and discussion at the wrap-up meeting of the Committee, attended by all four members, it was the unanimous decision of the Committee Members to recommend a setback of no closer than 2500′ from the property line, with the sound requirements remaining the same as in the original recommendations made last fall.

Respectfully Submitted,

Roy Bilby
William Lancaster
Joan Sondergaard
Robert Reed

Members of the Richmondville (NY)Wind Turbine Setback Committee

NOTE FROM THE BPRC RESEARCH NERD: We thank windturbinesyndrome.com for posting this article and making it possible for us to share it here.

Photo by Lynda Barry: Home in a Wind Farm: Butler Ridge Project, Town of Herman, Dodge County, Wisconsin, May 2009

In a story published in the Chicago Reader last week, a lobbyist for the wind industry gave us his take on what's really behind the complaints of those living too close to 400 foot wind turbines.

Although we don't agree with this psychological assessment of families who are having trouble living with the PSC-approved setbacks, we present his statement to give you a glimpse into the soul of a lobbyist for Big Wind.

CLICK HERE to read the full story on line.

“You can’t stop a project in Wisconsin based on the appearance of these turbines,” [Michael Vickerman] says, “so over the past seven years the opposition has refined its arguments and framed them in the realm of protecting public health and safety.Here, as far as I’m concerned, is where they reveal their antiwind bias.

They allege that they can’t sleep, they suffer from nausea—they express their discomfort in the most hysterical terms, and I think they basically work themselves into a very visceral hatred for wind.I don’t even know if they have a philosophical objection to wind. They’re maybe congenitally unhappy people and they needed to project their fears and anxieties and resentments onto something new that comes into the neighborhood and disrupts things.”

-Michael Vickerman, as reported by the Chicago Reader, May 14, 2009

We also present the following story from a family living in a PSC approved wind farm with a wind turbine less than 1300 feet from their door.

They spoke to us on the evening of May 2, 2009, at their home which is located in Dodge County near the Town of Oakfield, Wisconsin.

Ann and Jason Wirtz bought their home on June 1st, 1996. It’s a pretty Wisconsin farmhouse near the Town of Oakfield in Dodge County. It’s the kind of place that had people stopping by to ask if the family would consider selling it.

“They’d just pull into our driveway,” says Ann. “There were people who said if we ever decided to sell it, we should call them.”

Although turn-of-the-century house needed a lot of work when they bought it, they didn’t mind. The Wirtz family planned to stay. Ann and Jason both grew up in the area and wanted to raise their children there.

“ I thought we were going to live here for the rest of our lives.” says Ann, a mother of four. “I thought one of our kids was going to live here after us.”

This was before 86 industrial wind turbines went up around their home as part of the Forward Energy wind project which began operation in March of 2008. The closest turbine is to the Wirtz home is less than 1300 feet from their door.

Wirtz family home, near Town of Byron, Fond Du Lac County, WIsconsin Photo By Gerry Meyer May 2, 2009“Last night it was whining,” said Ann. “It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them.” She describes feeling like a beat in her head. A pulse that matches the turbine’s rhythm.
“Last night was really bad,” she said.

She says she knows which nights are going to be loud by which way the turbine blades are facing, and her family dreads the nights when the wind is out of the west. “That’s when they are the loudest.”

Jason said he found out there was a wind farm planned for his area from a neighbor he ran into at the post office. “He asked me if I knew anything about the turbines coming in. I didn’t.” Jason came home and mentioned it to Ann.

“When I first heard about it I wasn’t that alarmed.” says Ann, “People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them at first.”

She assumed the turbines would be sited much further away from her home, unaware of the controversy over the setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin which allows turbines to be sited close as 1000 feet to the homes of people like the Wirtzes.

“All those orange flags they put in were way back there. I was thinking it wouldn’t be too bad. And then when that access road started coming in so close I said, ‘what the heck is going on?’

Meanwhile, Jason had been attending town meetings and learning more about the project. The more he learned, the more worried he became. Five months before the turbines went up, the Wirtz family decided to sell their house.

They called people who had let them know they’d be interested in buying it. “When they found out about the turbines,” said Ann, “They weren’t interested anymore.”

Wirtz family prepared the house to put on the market. In November of 2007, the home, sitting on eight acres, was appraised for $320,000. But this once sought-after property could find no buyers. “As soon as people found out about the wind farm coming in,” says Ann. “That was it. And once they started building the roads to the turbines, forget it. They’d ask what that road was for, we’d tell them and we’d never hear from them again.”

After the turbines went up, interested buyers stopped showing up altogether.

“We tried to find another realtor,” said Ann, “They’d ask ‘is it near the wind turbines?’ and when they found out it was, they wouldn’t even bother to come out to the house to look at it. One realtor told me it wasn’t worth her marketing dollars to even list it because if it was in the wind farm she knew she couldn’t sell it. I mean have you ever heard of a real estate agent turning down a chance to sell a house?”

Another realtor said they would have to price it well under $200,000 to get anyone to even look at it. “At that price we were going to be $50,000 worse than when we started, “ said Ann. “And that didn’t include the 12 years of work we put into the place.”

But the Wirtzes were increasingly anxious to get away from the turbines. While Jason, who works nights, wasn’t having much trouble with the turbine noise, it was keeping Ann and her children from sleeping well at night. They were tired all the time. They were also getting frequent headaches.

And there was trouble with their animals as well. The Wirtz family raise alpaca and have a breeding herd. Ann says the alpaca became jumpy the first day the turbines went on line. “Normally they are so calm. But the day the towers started up, they seemed to panic. They were on their back legs right away.”

Ann says the herd had always been docile and healthy, with no breeding problems. Since the wind farm started up, their temperament has changed and none of the females have been able to carry a pregnancy to full term. “ They’re nervous all the time now. And I can’t prove anything but I do know my animals. And I really felt something was wrong. All the years we’ve had them we’ve never had a problem.”

At night the herd shelters in the large metal shed behind the Wirtz home. When the turbines are loud, Ann says the sound echoes inside the shed and the metal vibrates and hums. “The noise in here gets just unbelievable. When the tin starts to vibrate in here, they can’t stand it. I have to find them a better home. This is torture for them.”

The same turbine noise has driven Ann out of her own bedroom “I can’t stand to be in that room anymore. I don’t sleep at all. My sleep has been terrible.” Instead she sleeps on the couch where a fan on their pellet stove helps counter the turbine noise. “My number one complaint is how tired I am all the time,” says Ann, “I never had that before, ever.”

Says Jason, “We don’t have air conditioning, we didn’t want it and we didn’t need it. In the summer we just opened the windows and let cross breezes cool the house. But the first summer with the turbine noise we had to shut the windows and turn on the fan. We couldn’t stand it.”

After one of the children was recently diagnosed with a severe stress-related illness, the Wirtzes decided they’d had enough. They decided the health of their family was more important than keeping their home, and they are abandoning it.

“Now, after all the trouble we’ve had living here” said Ann, “ If a family showed up and wanted to buy the place and they had kids, I don’t think I could sell it to them. Knowing what I know about living here, I just don’t think I could put another family through this.”

They are now looking for a place in a nearby village. “We were born and raised in the country but we’re thinking of moving to Oakfield because they aren’t going to plop a 400 foot turbine in the middle of the village, says Jason. “And I know I’m going to have to drive by this place every day on my way to work. It’s going to make me sick to see it, but I can’t stay here anymore.”

Ann adds, “I say we move near whoever it is that decides on the setbacks because you know they’ll never have a turbine by their place”

Jason and Ann sit at the dining room table and point out the elaborate woodwork they’d stripped and re-finished by hand. Jason holds a picture of the farmhouse from happier days. Earlier that day they’d met with the people at the bank to let them know they were giving up their home.

Jason says, “At least we’re young enough to start over. My mom, she doesn’t have much money and now she has turbines around her house. She said, ‘This house was my retirement,’ Her and my dad put everything into that house. Now I don’t know what she’s going to do.” Jason says, “The quality of life we had here is just gone.”

“I grew up here, and I loved it here,” Says Jason, “But I don’t any more.”

Part of the Wirtz family Alpaca herd. Photo by Gerry Meyer

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Though the wind industry continues to deny any negative effects on animals caused by wind turbines, click here to read a BBC report which tells a different story.

[Download a copy of this story by clicking here]

To read the most recent transcripts from the 5/12/09 hearing on Wind Turbine Siting Reform, click here

Click on the image below to watch residents of Mars Hill speak about life in a wind farm.

Turbines' effect on health is underestimated

This column appeared in the Sun Journal in Lewiston, Maine.

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum is a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent. Dr. Albert Aniel is an internist at Rumford Hospital.

May 10, 2009
[Source]

Our work has shown that people in Mars Hill living within 3,500 feet of turbines there are truly suffering, in a real medical sense. Clearly, any regulation that results in placement of turbines, anywhere in Maine, at less than a 3,500-foot setback is courting a bad human outcome, regardless of sound modeling used by the industry to show there will be no ill effects in that range. As clearly demonstrated by post-construction measurements at Mars Hill, the model used by the wind industry for that project was seriously flawed.

May 10, 2009 by Michael Nissenbaum, M.D. in Sun Journal

The state should not permit new wind farms until studies of their harmful effects are complete.

As physicians and clinicians, it is our foremost duty to do no harm. Therefore, we think it's reasonable to adopt the best practices of jurisdictions with decades of experience with wind power, and slow the permitting of such projects in Maine until health regulations are in place.

France enacted regulations in 2006 that stipulated a level of 25 decibels should not be exceeded in the home; the World Health Organization recommends no industry should increase ambient daytime noise by five decibels and nighttime noise by three decibels. The WHO also recommends bedroom noise levels never exceed 30 decibels.

Our work has shown that people in Mars Hill living within 3,500 feet of turbines there are truly suffering, in a real medical sense. Clearly, any regulation that results in placement of turbines, anywhere in Maine, at less than a 3,500-foot setback is courting a bad human outcome, regardless of sound modeling used by the industry to show there will be no ill effects in that range.

As clearly demonstrated by post-construction measurements at Mars Hill, the model used by the wind industry for that project was seriously flawed. Among other things, it seems to have disregarded the effects of multiple turbines in a linear arrangement perpendicular to residential neighborhoods.

It also ignores low frequency noise, even though low frequencies travel much longer distances and correlate with turbine-related health effects, particularly sleep disturbance, and all the negatives that flow from that fundamental ill effect.

We reasonably conclude the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health and Human Services are currently unprepared and largely unaware of noise and health issues related to wind factories. We should all agree on the need to ensure that additional citizens shouldn't suffer the results as those Mars Hill residents who live within 3,500 feet of the turbines.

Also, in this regard, we note there is no research about effects on residents living between 3,500 feet and 1.25 miles or so from turbines. As such, we cannot state what distance ill effects might abate, if they do within that range. Sound regulations in European jurisdictions therefore effectively result in setbacks of between one to 1.5 miles, depending upon the topography.

We state with some confidence that ill effects are likely when homes are placed within 3,500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines. Ridgeline placements seem to be the prevalent pattern of turbine placement the industry would like to impose upon Maine.

It is logical for us to expect the state regulatory agencies to familiarize themselves as soon as possible with the relevant physics and physiology, and put appropriate setback regulations in effect before additional turbines are placed.

We note the DEP, in its variance regarding Mars Hill, described the allowance to 50 decibels as creating noise "similar to songbirds." This speaks to the lack of understanding of the nature of sound and a failure to appreciate that a decibel level alone is just one component of a sound's makeup.
One can no more describe sound by decibel level than describe a Van Gogh painting by saying "it is blue."

If poor outcomes such as Mars Hill are to be avoided, it is necessary to stop the "gold rush" mentality that relies on faulty wind modeling currently endorsed by projects, which have been rubberstamped by the DEP and the Land Use Regulatory Commission.

Furthermore, the state must have means to not only check for compliance, but also enforce compliance with credible threats to ensure it, including orders to stop turbine rotation and remove noncompliant turbines where and when necessary. We're concerned DEP is not up to this task, given recent statements about being overburdened.

There are many issues that need to be worked out. A moratorium is logical, unless we quickly move to adopt more stringent European and Australian standards.

Otherwise, the state's failure to act responsibly on this issue is the equivalent of abandoning its responsibility to protect public health, which would leave the people with few options other than seeking remedy and redress through the courts.





-

Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect Your Sleep or Health?

Families who live on a portion of East Ridge Road and Mountain Road on the backside of Mars Hill say, at times over the past two and a half years, they've lived with unbearable noise. They feel their complaints have been ignored. Read and watch their story as reported by WLBZ Channel 2 in Maine. May 14, 2009 by Beth Alteri in WLBZ Channel 2

[source]

Watch the two-part newscast:

Part 1

Part 2

MARS HILL -- Families who live on a portion of East Ridge Road and Mountain Road on the backside of Mars Hill say, at times over the past two and a half years, they've lived with unbearable noise. They feel their complaints have been ignored.

Wendy Todd returned to Mars Hill in 2005 with her husband and three children. They started to build their dream house on her family land. But that dream house remains unfinished, because the Todds say their dream has become a nightmare.

"After about three or four hours of heavy blade thump your body starts to get uneasy. It's kind of like kids playing rap music, you know you can handle it for a while, but then it starts to wear on your nerves and then if it interferes with your sleep and it goes on for days, it's sort of like a form of torture," Todd said.

Lorraine and Arnold Tardy built their retirement home in Mars Hill. Lorraine Tardy has been on medication for migraines for most of her adult life, but she feels that since the turbines started spinning, the headaches have become worse, and the medication is less effective.

"It's just that if you could go to sleep when you get them and you can't when you hear this thump thump thump and your head is pounding pounding its like they work together."

Bernard Stikney and Diane Glidden also started building their new home before the turbines went online. They have taken videos of the shadow flicker from the blades and have recorded noise levels.

"We don't enjoy our weekends like we used to we used to enjoy having barbeques on our deck or to have friends over and we do what we can to try to get away on the weekends"

Glidden says that since the turbines started up, she has been prescribed medication for sleep disturbance, depression, and headaches.

"I am in fact affected with depression, my doctor says its because of the stress, the lack of sleep, alot of the anger I have inside of me because of the windmills."

Some of the residents of East Ridge Road, and Mountain Road live less than a half mile from the turbines. During our day long visit we couldn't hear much turbine noise outside their homes and none at all inside the homes. Outisde Wendy Todds back door, we could hear the rain more than the turbines. Todd and the other residents told us we were there on a day when the noise was not nearly as bad as it gets.

"We've had times where the dishwashers running, the washer and dryer are running, and the kids are all doing their thing and you can still hear the turbines over all of that. So it's a noise that penetrates and it tends to be repeitive in nature," Todd stated.

All the families insist that the repetitive pulsing of the turbines doesn't compare to any other noise. Which adds to their frustration.

"You'll hear things from people in town like 'Oh you'll get used to it' or 'Oh you should try living next to a railroad or you should try living on Route 1' , and most of us have done that. Most of us have lived in places like that and its not like that this is different," Todd Expained.

Roger shaw is the superintendent of schools for SAD 42. His home and office are both about a mile and a half from the nearest turbine. Shaw doesn't doubt the complaints of people who live closer, but he says he can't hear the turbines from the school district office or his home.

"It has not disrupted my sleep or my families. It has not been an annoyance to me," Shaw said.

But residents who live closer say any doubters should spend a week in their homes.

"People come out here on a good day and they drive by and stop. Well we dont hear nothing you're not here. If you lived out here and you knew what it was before these were up here you'd hear something, because theres always something going on. Before you could hear a pin drop out there," Stickney said.

State health officials say they have no definitive medical evidence that the wind turbines are making residents sick, but a radiologist from Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent believes he has found some alarming evidence in Mars Hill that deserves more attention.

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum decided to research the Mars Hill Project after the a wind developer set its sights on his community. He created a questionaire and interviewed 15 people from 11 families, including the Todds, Tardys, Glidden, and Stikney.

"These people are suffering they are truly suffering. And no one is listening to them and no one really seems to be doing anything about it," Nissenbaum said.

Nissenbaum says 14 of the 15 residents reported difficulty sleeping, and 15 new prescription drugs are being taken by those residents for conditions including migraines, depression, and sleep disturbance.

"The frequencies for some of the disturbances particulary sleep disturbance and headaches is so high to any reasonable physician looking at the data its enough for him to say wait a minute theres something here."

Nissenbaum also believes Maine Department of Environmental Protection noise regulations were not adequate in Mars Hill because the state granted developers a variance to produce sound levels 5 decibels above the 45 decibel nightime limit, which is the maximum sound level that should be recorded at the projects property lines. He also believes the method used to measure sound did not sufficiently factor in the low frequency repetive sound produced by turbines.

"It's like an airplane that never takes off or like a locomotive that never arrives or never leaves."

Nissenbaum admits his survey is preliminary and lacks scientific controls, but he and the medical staff at Northern Maine Medical Center feel there's enough evidence to enact a moratorium on wind projects until a more in depth health study is done.

First Wind, the developer of the Mars Hill Project, does not believe a moratorium is needed. Matt Kearns, First Winds Vice President of Development for the Northeast says the company went through a very thorough permitting process through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

"DEP standards are very aggressive. The studies that are done, They are extraordinarily rigorous. We do the studies, they then have a third party review the study results and then DEP decides whether they issue a permit."

Dr Dora Mills, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control also does not believe Maine should put the brakes on wind power.

"I do not believe there is any reason for a moratorium on wind turbines in Maine in fact I think its just the opposite. We need to go full fledged and build more wind turbines because of the fact that they impact our health in a very positive way. They make us less dependent on foreign oil and coal and we know that our high dependency on foreign oil and coal right now leads to people in Maine dying prematurely of asthma and heart disease and other ill affects." Mills said.

While the state has no plans to do an in depth health study in Mars Hill, Mills says she has written a letter of support for a Yale professor seeking a research grant to do such a study. She also says Maine DEP has learned a lot since Mars Hill and has enacted stricter regulations to ensure no residents are adversely affected by any future projects.

Kearns says First Wind will continue to listen to the concerns of Mars Hill residents, and continue to address concerns of residents in other communities where it plans to build.

"I think it's really important that we study these projects very carefully and we do through the rigorous permitting process that the state of Maine has," Kearns said.

But that offers no comfort to the residents of Mars Hill who live closest to the turbines.

"I grew up in a bubble thinking that people are basically good and there are things put in place to protect people that are failsafe and they're just not. They're not," Todd said.

Dr. Nissenbaum presented his survey to the Maine Medical Associations public health committee in late March in hopes that it will endorse his call for a moratrorium.

The Public Health Committee is expected to discuss the survey at its May 20th meeting.

Former Governor Angus King, who is involved with another wind developer told NEWS CENTER that he has no doubt that some people in Mars Hill live too close to the turbines and are bothered by the noise, and stressed that as long as people live an appropriate distance from the turbines, there will be no adverse impacts.

Home in a Wind Farm: Cedar Ridge Project near Iron Ridge, Wisconsin. May 2009

Download entire comic strip by Clicking Here

For the next two weeks Better Plan, Wisconsin will be presenting transcripts of some of the testimony given at the May 12 public hearing at the Captiol regarding turbine siting reform. [Click here to download the bill]

Watch or listen to the entire hearing by clicking on the links below:

(Video and audio courtesy of Wisconsin Eye -- click here for source)

Click here to Watch |

Click here to Listen

Testimony given at the Public Hearing on Turbine Siting Reform by Wisconsin State Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer, (D-Manitowoc) before a joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Utilities, Energy and Rail and the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities.

Senate Bill 185 and Assembly Bill 256 direct the Public Service Commission, after public input, to establish permitting standards to be applied by local or state government to wind energy installations, regardless of size and location. Bob Ziegelbauer is a state representative from Manitowoc, and Manitowoc County executive.

I'm here today to speak in opposition to these proposals, which work to undermine the confidence people have in the value of local government and the even-handedness of their state government.

In the Manitowoc County area, we are very interested in efficient new energy technologies. We host two valuable, highly efficient nuclear plants (and if you're really serious about producing low-cost electricity for a long time, we would love to put one more between those two). Our workers manufacture the towers that support the wind turbines. And, the city of Manitowoc operates a new, clean, coal-power plant in the middle of town, a block from my house, three blocks from the courthouse.

We are "all in" on the energy economy.

The issue here is actually a fairly simple one: Do you trust people in their local communities to make serious land-use decisions on important issues? These bills say very clearly that you do not.

Nearly five years ago, when it became clear that the demand for wind power sites would include our area, town and county government embarked on the intense process of trying to make the difficult land-use policy decisions contemplated under existing state law.

After a failed first attempt to create a suitable county wind power ordinance, the county board took a "time out" by declaring a moratorium on projects while it convened a special study committee to write a new ordinance. That committee, a balanced mix of citizen and elected officials encompassing all the principal points of view, took significant public input and agonized over the implications of making wind tower siting decisions.

After more than a year of serious deliberation, their work product, a comprehensive wind power ordinance, was overwhelmingly passed into law by the Manitowoc County Board in 2006. That both sides of the debate came away from the process a little unhappy with the results speaks highly of the quality of the work they did.

It continues to be tested, defined and refined according to the appropriate due process that is available at the local level for these issues. This (legislation) would throw all that work away.

These bills are ultimately a power grab, couched in the usual excuses — artificially-created minimum requirements for alternative power generation, speculative theories about man-made global warming, impatience with local decision making, and frustration with due process.

I'm here today to stand up for those local officials and the process of making local decisions throughout the state. Their work and the work of similar groups of local officials, who took their responsibilities seriously and in good faith waded in to address controversial issues in their communities, should stand and not be washed away because "Monday morning quarterbacks" from 150 miles away don't like the result.

These proposals tell local officials to get out of the way, dodge the tough issues, and because people in Madison know better; you'll decide.

I urge you not to pass these bills.

Download Representative Ziegelbauer's testimony by Clicking Here

Testimony From Douglas Zweizig, Acting Chair of the Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission

May 12, 2009

I am speaking today in opposition to AB-256 that proposes to remove control over the placement of large wind energy systems from local governments.

For a sixteen-month period, ending in November of 2008, I served as the acting chair of the Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission as it developed its Ordinance No. 2008-06, Wind Energy Systems Licensing Ordinance.

Extensive work of a volunteer citizen Wind Turbines Study Committee, the Union Plan Commission, and the Town of Union Board was made necessary because the Wisconsin Public Service Commission had failed in its responsibilities to fully investigate or consider the impacts on human health that result from proximity to large wind turbines.

I am concerned that, if decisions on the rules governing placement of large wind turbines is given to this same negligent Public Service Commission, great harm to Wisconsin residents will result.

We already have enough evidence of harm to human health resulting from sound from large wind turbines now operating in Wisconsin.

I must admit that when I first began to inform myself about this issue, I was skeptical of the seemingly hysterical reports of effects of sound from the turbines. After all, seen from a distance, they seem rather elegant, slow-moving providers of green energy.

However, as I have learned more and have visited properties surrounded by large wind turbines, I have come to understand that what looked like hysteria was more likely desperation expressed by citizens who were suffering serious effects, had been failed by their government, and were either going to have to move (if possible) or suffer these effects for the next thirty years.

I am strongly in favor of alternative energy sources. My wife and I have installed a geothermal heating/cooling system on our rural property and are investigating investment in photovoltaic and wind energy systems. However, I think that there has been too little attention paid to the personal property aspects of large wind energy systems.

While I believe that the state should allow great latitude for what one does on his/her own property, I also believe that the state should carefully consider what effects a property owner can produce on neighboring properties.

In effect, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has chosen to ignore these effects on neighboring properties, and our township was required to expend extensive money and volunteer time to develop an ordinance that protects our residents’ health and safety and property rights.

Now comes proposed legislation to override local control at the locations where wind turbines would be sited and to give control over the standards to the Public Service Commission.

Wind turbine vendors, utilities, and utility-supported renewable energy groups support the proposed legislation. But the Public Service Commission has already had its opportunity to develop responsible standards, and failed to do so.

In its Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin, put forth to provide guidance for local governments, the Public Service Commission recommended that it was safe to locate a 400-foot wind turbine within 1,000 feet of a neighbor’s residence.

When the Town of Union’s Wind Turbines Study Committee sought to determine how PSC knew that this 1,000-foot setback would protect the neighbor’s health and safety, it required a Freedom of Information Act request to learn that the PSC was taking the word of an out-of-state utility and had made no independent determination.

Now it appears that the PSC has abandoned its own guidelines and has withdrawn the Draft Model Wind Ordinance for Wisconsin from its website.

In 2007, the Public Service Commission received and ignored a communication from board-certified experts in acoustics and community noise with critiques of the Public Service Commission’s recommendations and offers of unpaid assistance.

This inadequate approach to the development of its recommendations suggests that the Public Service Commission will be insufficiently protective of the property or health of Wisconsin residents.

When asked about health and safety effects of wind turbines, EcoEnergy (the company proposing to locate wind turbines in our township) as well as our local utility simply have denied that there are any concerns, using statements such as “The noise from wind turbines is about the same as a refrigerator running in the room. “ or “The noise from wind turbines is masked by the sound of the wind blowing.”

These often-repeated statements are demonstrably false and would be laughable if they weren’t so disrespectful of the people suffering from sleep deprivation and other chronic health effects resulting from bad placement of wind turbines in Wisconsin.

If they believe what they’re saying, they can’t have listened to their own turbines.

They are counting on the ignorance of landowners, editorial writers, and, frankly, legislators to allow them to make such deceitful claims. (Yet, while denying any adverse effects from placement of wind turbines, EcoEnergy uses the word “mitigation” a lot— betraying their recognition of the need to counteract the effects of wind turbines on humans in their vicinity.)

The language used to promote this bill—such as, “uniform siting standards,” “protecting and creating ‘green collar’ jobs,” and “a sensible wind energy policy”—sounds desirable and sensible, but, given the behavior of the key players who have lobbied for this bill, the justifications given are simply spin.

These parties have not behaved responsibly or in good faith in the past and cannot be expected to give adequate care to the welfare of Wisconsin citizens.
Finally, this legislation is not just a bad idea, but is unnecessary and meddlesome in local affairs.There are already enough safeguards in place to limit unreasonable local ordinances.

Unduly restrictive local ordinances can be challenged in court. If the wind turbine companies and utilities have a case to make, they would only have to make it in court one time to affect similar cases.

Further, many ordinances, including ours, contain “good neighbor agreement” options that would allow setbacks closer than the ordinance stipulates if the affected landowners agree.

The parties in support of this proposed legislation are trying for a short cut by trying to put the Public Service Commission—an agency they have already co-opted—in charge so they don’t have to address the troublesome issues of health, safety, and property rights.

I would ask that the committees considering this legislation not report it out or the legislators to vote against this attempt to override local control over the welfare of citizens.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak today on this important issue.

Douglas Zweizig
Plan Commission member,
Town of Union, Rock County
Evansville, Wisconsin 53536

[Note: Due to time constraints this testimony was not read aloud, but was submitted to the committee]

Download Doug Zweizig testimony by Clicking Here

Contact your legislators by Clicking Here

Home For Sale, Price Reduced Near Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI Photo: Gerry Meyer 2009Testimony from Graceann Toberman, Clerk/Treasurer, and resident, Town of Magnolia in Rock County, Wisconsin

Hi, I'm Graceann Toberman, I live in the Town of Magnolia in Rock County. My family and I live on a farm where we raise crops, beef cattle and chickens.

We are very concerned about the health-effects of the wind turbines.

Our town and neighboring towns researched the pros and cons and feel the distance these are placed from our homes and farms is the key component of siting them correctly.
The previous state model wind ordinance okayed turbines to be sited 1000 feet from our homes. The Public Service Commission approved this.

Our town has rolling hills with a few steep ridges. These ridges are zoned highland conservancy to preserve the land and protect from erosion. Farmers are not allowed to farm on these steep slopes and houses and driveways are not allowed. Yet the wind companies want to build there.

The people living in the surrounding area, their families and farming livelihood would all be changed. I think it is important to be careful not to ruin the livelihood of people who are farming and producing much needed food.

It would be terrible to trade this for wind turbines that have been proven to harm the health of people , if not sited correctly. We are in favor of renewable resources. Because no two communities are exactly the same, please let the local officials, who know the lay of the land, the needs of the community and are better able to watch out for the health and safety of their residents --have a voice at the siting of the turbines.

Today I heard many people complain about the "patchwork quilt"of rules in Wisconsin.
The state is a beautiful patchwork quilt, all towns are different and that is why the siting rules need to be fit to each community.

I have been the treasurer of Magnolia for 16 years. When someone talked about how much money the municipalities will be losing from payments - it upset me because it isn't true.

The towns have never received payments - how can we lose something we never had? The cost of the turbines, 3.5 million each, was also mentioned – This money is coming from Spain and now our wind will be foreign owned.

We have heard from many people today that are really being hurt from health effects and yet others still say "but we are closer to our renewable requirements! At what cost are we doing this?

Thank you for listening to me.

Download Testimony from Graceann Toberman by Clicking Here