Resource Library Category: Wisconsin (61 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Field fragmentation
Source: Bembinster, Jim
Wisconsin farmers sign on with wind developers because it seems like easy money. They are told they can farm right up to the turbine foundations. They are told about a quarter acre of land will be taken out of production for each turbine.
What they are not told is there will be access roads and trenching for each turbine that will go where the developer wants them to go, crossing at diagonals in the middle of fields, and in some areas compacting the soil so badly crop production is affected and drain tiles are crushed. The farmer is not told that they’ve given the wind company the right to use the land as it wishes. It’s all in the contract, if you know how to read a contract, or take that contract to a lawyer to read over for you.
The photos below were recently taken by Jim Bembinster. They show a wind project in Columbia County being built by We Energies and the newly fragmented farm fields. [via Better Plan, Wisconsin]
An Ordinance to Impose a Temporary Stay on Construction of Large Wind Energy Systems in the Town of Holland
Source: Town Board, Holland, Wis.
ORDINANCE NO. 3-1-2010-B
Recitals:
1. A “wind energy system” is an electricity generating facility consisting of one or more wind turbines under common ownership or operating control, and includes substations, MET Towers, cables/wires and other buildings accessory to such facility, whose main purpose is to supply electricity to off-site customer(s). A “wind turbine” is a wind energy conversion system which converts wind energy into electricity through the use of a wind turbine generator. A “large wind energy system” is a wind energy system with turbines exceeding 170 feet in height and 100 kilowatts in nameplate capacity.
2. There is an interest in establishing wind energy systems in the Town of Holland.
3. There exist potential health and safety issues related to the construction of large wind energy systems including, but not limited to, electrical connections, electric and magnetic fields, tower failure (falling turbines), tower climbing, falling ice, blade thrower, flicker or shadow flicker, and noise.
4. The Town currently has an Ordinance regarding wind energy systems but Town residents have informed the Town Board at a public hearing that the current ordinance is inadequate to protect the public health and safety of the Town residents and that particularly the present setback requirements are insufficient to provide reasonable protection from health effects including health effects from noise and shadow flicker associated with wind energy systems.
5. The Town Board has been authorized under Wis. Stat. 60.10(2)(c) to exercise powers conferred on Village Boards, and also has the authority to adopt zoning regulations under Wis. Stat. 60.61 and 60.62 and 61.35.
6. The Town is beginning the process of reviewing its present ordinance and adopting an ordinance that will provide a review and permitting process and ensure the health and safety standards for large wind energy systems, and to adopt an ordinance that complies with Wis. Stat. 66.040(m)(a) to (c) and which complies with Wis. Stat. 196.378(4g).
7. On February 1, 2010, the Town Plan Commission conducted a public hearing preceded by publication of a notice, regarding what process the Town should use to study and develop a large wind energy system ordinance, and whether the Town should impose a temporary stay on the construction of large wind energy systems while the Town is considering amendment and changes to its present ordinance. The Town Plan Commission did recommend passing an amendment to its ordinance by creating a setback of 2,640 feet from inhabited structures for wind energy turbines and a moratorium on the construction of said facilities be placed for one year so that the Town can study the health and safety issues associated with wind energy systems.
8. That the Town Board on February 1, 2010 Board Meeting discussed the recommendations of the Town Plan Commission. The Town Board proceeded to direct the attorney for the Town to draft an amendment to the present ordinance regarding the setback from inhabited structures for wind energy turbines to be 2,640 feet from an inhabited structure and draft a moratorium for one year on the construction of said wind energy systems, and to appoint a committee to study the wind energy ordinance and to make suggested recommendations with regard to appropriate amendments. The Town Board has appointed a committee to advice with regard to changes in its present ordinance regarding large wind energy facilities to protect the health and safety of the residences of the Town and to gather information and
documentation with regard to the operation of the facilities.
9. That the State of Wisconsin has enacted 2009 Wisconsin Act 40 amending Wis. Stat. 66.0401(1m) and other statutes regarding regulation of wind energy systems and granting rule making authority to the Public Service Commission with advice of the wind siting council to promulgate rules that specify the restrictions a political subdivision may impose on the installation or use of wind energy systems consistent with the conditions specified in 66.0401(1m)(a) to (c). The subject matter of the rule shall include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection from any health effects from noise and shadow flicker, associated with energy systems. Such rules should also include decommissioning which may include visual appearance, lighting, electrical connections to power grid, setback distance, maximum audio sound levels, shadow flicker, proper means of measuring noise, interference with radio, telephone, television signals, or other matters. A political subdivision may not place restrictions on installation or use of wind energy systems that is more restrictive that these rules. To date, no such rules have been promulgated by the commission therefore a stay or moratorium would protect the health and safety of the residents of the Town until Town has amended its ordinance to adequately protect the health and safety of the Town residents.
10. As the Public Service Commission has not yet promulgated rules that specify the restrictions that the Town may impose on the installation or use of a wind energy system pursuant to S.S. 196.379(4g) of the Wisconsin Statutes, created by Act 40, and as it is uncertain when the rules specifying such restrictions will be promulgated by the Public Service Commission, a moratorium is necessary for the protection of the health and safety of the residents of the Town until such rules are promulgated or until the Town has amended its present ordinance in a manner sufficient to protect the health and safety of the public.
11. The Town Board agreed with the Town Plan Commission’s recommendation regarding the process that should be followed to amend the present ordinance and determined that the adoption of a temporary stay or moratorium will promote public health and safety of the people in the Town.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the above recitals and pursuant to Article XI, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, Sections 60.22( 3 ), 61.34, 60.61 and 60.62 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and any and all other sources of authority that authorize the adoption of this ordinance, the Town Board of Holland, Brown County, Wisconsin, dose hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Temporary Wind Energy System Stay (Moratorium)
There is hereby established a temporary stay (moratorium) on the construction of large wind energy systems in the Town. During the temporary stay provided by this ordinance it shall be unlawful to install or construct any large wind energy system or part thereof, and the Town shall not accept or process any applications relating to the proposed construction of any large wind energy system.
Section 2. Duration
One year from the date hereof.
Section 3. Inconsistent Ordinance Voided
All ordinances or provisions of ordinances inconsistent with or contravening the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby temporarily voided and shall have no legal force or effect during the period that this Ordinance is in effect.
Section 4. Scope
The temporary stay provided by this Ordinance shall apply throughout the Town.
Section 5. Severability
If any section or part of this Ordinance is adjudged to be unconstitutional, unlawful, or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption and publication or posting, as provided by law.
The above and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Holland at a meeting held on March 1, 2010 by a vote of 3 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting.
From One Wisconsin Farmer to Another
Source: Steinich, Gary
This is an open letter to Wisconsin farmers who are considering signing a wind lease to host turbines on your land. Before you sign, I’d like to tell you about what happened to our family farm after we signed a contract with a wind developer.
In 2002, a wind developer approached my father about signing a lease agreement to place a MET tower on our land. My father was in his 70’s at the time. The developer did a good job of befriending him and gaining his trust.
He assured my father that the project wasn’t a done deal and was a long way off. They first had to put up the MET tower to measure the wind for awhile.
He told my father that if the project went forward there would be plenty of time to decide if we wanted host turbines on our farm. There would be lots of details to work out and paperwork to sign well before the turbines would be built. The developer said my father could decide later on if he wanted to stay in the contract.
In 2003 the developer contacted us again. This time he wanted us to sign a contract to host turbines on our land. We were unsure about it, so we visited the closest wind project we knew of at the time. It was in Montfort, WI.
The Monfort project consists of 20 turbines that are about 300 feet tall and arranged in a straight line, taking up very little farmland with the turbine bases and access roads. The landowners seemed very satisfied with the turbines. But we were still unsure about making the commitment.
We were soon contacted again by the developer, and we told him we were undecided. Then he really started to put pressure on us to sign.
This was in March of 2004, a time of $1.60 corn and $1200 an acre land. It seemed worth it have to work around a couple of turbines for the extra cash. We were told the turbines would be in a straight line and only take up a little bit of land like the ones in Monfort.
And we were also told that we were the ones holding up the project. That all of our neighbors had signed, and we were the last hold-outs. It persuaded us.
What we didn’t know then was the developer was not being truthful. We were not the ‘last hold-out’ at all. In later discussions with our neighbors we found out that in fact we were the very first farmers to sign up. I have since found out this kind of falsehood is a common tactic of wind developers.
My father read through the contract. He said he thought it was ok. I briefly skimmed through it, found the language confusing, but trusted my father’s judgment. We didn’t hire lawyer to read it through with us. We didn’t feel the need to. The developer had explained what was in it.
The wind contract and easement on our farm was for 20 years. By then my dad was 75. He figured time was against him for dealing with this contract in the future so we agreed I should sign it. A few months later, my father died suddenly on Father’s Day, June 20th, 2004
After that, we didn’t hear a whole lot about the wind farm for a couple years. There was talk that the project was dead. And then in 2007 we were told the developer sold the rights to the project. A Wisconsin utility bought it.
After that everything changed. The contract I signed had an option that allowed it to be extended for an additional 10 years. The utility used it.
The turbines planned for the project wouldn’t be like the ones in Monfort. They were going to be much larger, 400 feet tall. And there were going to be 90 of them.
They weren’t going to be in a straight row. They’d be sited in the spots the developer felt were best for his needs, including in middle of fields, with access roads sometimes cutting diagonally across good farm land. Landowners could have an opinion about turbine placement but they would not have final say as to where the turbines and access roads would be placed. It was all in the contract.
Nothing was the way we thought it was going to be. We didn’t know how much land would be taken out of production by the access roads alone. And we didn’t understand how much the wind company could do to our land because of what was in the contract..
In 2008 I had the first of many disputes with the utility, and soon realized that according to the contract I had little to no say about anything. This became painfully clear to me once the actual construction phase began in 2010 and the trucks and equipment came to our farm and started tearing up the field.
In October of 2010 a representative of the utility contacted me to ask if a pile of soil could be removed from my farm. It was near the base of one of the turbines they were putting on my land. I said no, that no soil is to be removed from my farm.
The rep said that the pile was actually my neighbor’s soil, that the company was storing it on my land with plans to move it to another property.
Shortly afterwards I noticed the pile of subsoil was gone.
In November of 2011 I saw several trucks loading up a second pile of soil on my land and watched them exiting down the road. I followed them and then called the Columbia County Sheriff. Reps from the company were called out. I wanted my soil back.
A few days later the rep admitted they couldn’t give it back to me because my soil was gone. It had been taken and already dispersed on someone else’s land. I was offered 32 truck loads of soil from a stockpile they had. I was not guaranteed that the soil would be of the same quality and composition as the truck loads of soil they took from my farm.
I was informed by the lawyer for the utility that I had until April 30, 2011 to decide to take the soil. There would be no other offer. Take it or leave it.
I contacted the Public Service Commission for help. The PSC approved the terms of project and I believed the utility was violating those terms. The PSC responded by telling me they could do nothing because the issue involved a private contract between myself and the utility.
They told me my only option was to sue the utility.
My father and I both worked those fields. Watching the way they’ve been ripped apart would sicken any farmer. But what farmer has the time and money it would take to sue a Wisconsin utility?
By signing that contract I signed away the control of the family farm, and it’s the biggest regret I have ever experienced and will ever experience. I have only myself to blame for not paying close enough attention to what I was signing.
We had a peaceful community here before the developer showed up, but no more. Now it’s neighbor against neighbor, family members not speaking to one another and there is no ease in conversation like in the old days. Everyone is afraid to talk for fear the subject of the wind turbines will come up. The kind of life we enjoyed in our community is gone forever.
I spend a lot of sleepless nights wishing I could turn back the clock and apply what I’ve learned from this experience. Now corn and bean prices are up. The money from the turbines doesn’t balance out our crop loss from land taken out of production. The kind of life we enjoyed on our family farm is gone forever too.
I would not sign that contract today. As I write this, the utility is putting up the towers all around us. In a few months the turbines will be turned on and we’ll have noise and shadow flicker to deal with. If I have trouble with these things, too bad. I’ve signed away my right to complain. These are some of the many problems I knew nothing about when I signed onto the project.
If you are considering signing a wind lease, take the contract to a lawyer. Go over every detail. Find out exactly what can happen to your fields, find out all the developer will be allowed to do to your land. Go through that contract completely, and think hard before make your decision.
I can tell you from first hand experience, once you sign that contract, you will not have a chance to turn back.
Gary Steinich
Steinich Farms, Inc.
Cambria, WI
June, 2011
[via Better Plan, Wisconsin]
Health, Human rights, Maine, Noise, Ontario, Regulations, Vermont, Wisconsin •
Comments on Robert McCunney’s testimony on behalf of Green Mountain Power
Source: Pierpont, Nina
Green Mountain Power has applied for a permit to erect 21 wind turbines on Lowell Mountain, Lowell, Vermont. Rebuttal testimony of Robert McCunney on behalf of Green Mountain Power Corporation was filed on November 22, 2010 — Summary of Testimony: Dr. McCunney responds to claims by Department of Public Service witness Mr. Kane, Albany witness Mr. James, Lowell Mountains Group witness Mr. Blomberg and others concerning the health and related impacts of sound. He also supports the Board’s approved sound standard for wind projects.
Among other comments, Pierpont notes how McCunney repeatedly emphasizes the relative inaudibility of low-frequency noise and infrasound, implying that therefore it can not be a problem, and how he describes recent research describing how the inner ear filters out infrasound so that indeed we don’t hear it, but denies its neural communication to other physiologic systems than conscious hearing. See: Salt A. N., and Hullar, T. E., “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines”, Hearing Research, 2010 Sep 1, 268(1-2):12-21; and Salt, Alec, “Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don’t tell your brain”, presentation, Symposium on Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines, Picton, Ontario, October 29-31, 2010.
She also notes how he cruelly dismisses individually variable sensitivity as reason to ignore the problem rather than face it with concern, and how he lumps wind turbine noise in with other “modern-era” noises despite clear evidence that annoyance is much greater for wind turbines at lower sound levels. See
Pedersen, E., and Waye, K. P., “Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose-response relationship”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004 Dec, 116(6):3460-70; and Pedersen, E., “Human response to wind turbine noise — perception, annoyance and moderating factors”, Dissertation, 2007, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Göteborg University Sahlgrenska Institute.
