[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Sutherland: Kittitas wind farm decision "political"  

Asked this week about this summer’s decision to preempt Kittitas County’s rejection of the controversial Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project Washington Public Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland said it was an easy call.

“Our conversation was really quite short,” said Sutherland, who has a representative on the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.

That body recommended Gov. Chris Gregoire approve the project over the county’s rejection, which she did. The county is now appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Sutherland was asked about it in a meeting with the Herald editorial board because another wind project with potential for controversy is being touted for a Mid-Columbia icon, Rattlesnake Mountain. The mountain makes up the southwest border of the Hanford nuclear reservation.

Just like in the Ellensburg area, residents who have no legal stake in the project are beginning to worry about how it will affect their view of the mountain.

In recommending preemption of the Kittitas County decision in August, the siting council opined that proponents of the KV wind project had met most local land use requirements before county commissioners rejected it.

Sutherland said the message constituents were sending to commissioners at the time was “if they wanted to continue in office politically, you’re not going to allow these instruments. From the county’s position, it was a political decision.”

And under similar circumstances, Sutherland said he’d do the same thing in Benton County with the Rattlesnake Mountain project.

“If it’s important to this state to have alternative forms of energy, and this is an alternative form of energy, yes indeed I would recommend we continue to construct it.”

By Chris Mulick

Tri-City Herald

1 November 2007

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter