[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

when your community is targeted


RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind project boundaries presented to Board Of Supervisors 

Credit:  Kimberly Foley- 23ABC Mountain Reporter, www.turnto23.com 31 January 2012 ~~

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – In November, the Board of Supervisors asked the Kern County Planning Department to come up with a plan that would essentially protect certain rural areas from massive wind projects. Tuesday was the deadline.

This afternoon the planning department proposed several options that work toward creating boundaries around certain communities to protect them from the wind projects they’re constantly fighting.

“Nobody I’ve talked to wants these windmills in our valley whatsoever,” said Brian McDaniel, a Twin Oaks resident. “Stop the destruction of our pristine valley.”

McDaniel’s message was echoed several times over during a packed house Board of Supervisors meeting.

“(We have) beautiful pristine mountains, and they want to chop it up and put wind farms on it,” said Tony Lirocchi, a resident. “It’s time to say no.”

Most in attendance were residents from mountain communities like Twin Oaks and Tehachapi, which are places that are seeing a number of wind mill project proposals.

“Our stance (is) we think wind energy is farce so we don’t want to see it at all,” said McDaniel. “I know I’m up against a humongous backlash for saying that, but that’s where we stand.”

The meeting on Tuesday is something residents like Lirocchi would like to see because he says none of the options presented will do.

“I hope they’ll reconsider destroying the Piute Mountains,” he said. “There’s got to be some other areas that don’t offer the same beautiful pristine (view) that that area does. There’s got to be some other areas they can use.”

The meeting wrapped up after 5 p.m. The board voted to go with the concept of one of the four proposals. Before making any final decisions the board decided to re-work the specific boundaries, meet with the communities involved and get public comment again.

Source:  Kimberly Foley- 23ABC Mountain Reporter, www.turnto23.com 31 January 2012

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

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)


e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon