[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

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

Groups make new case in opposing Lowell wind turbines 

Credit:  Written by Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer | Burlington Free Press | Dec. 5, 2013 | www.burlingtonfreepress.com ~~

MONTPELIER – Nearly a year after the Lowell wind turbines began producing electricity, opponents were still fighting the project – this time taking their case to the state Supreme Court on Thursday.

Thursday’s case focused on an argument that the state Agency of Natural Resources should not have granted project developer Green Mountain Power Corp. permits that allows the company to use an alternative method of managing stormwater runoff from the mountain where 21 turbines are installed.

The five-member Supreme Court heard arguments from each side and is expected to make a ruling at a later date.

Nathan Stearns, a lawyer representing the group Energize Vermont, told the court in a 30-minute hearing that the Agency of Natural Resources did not follow the standard stormwater management when it permitted Green Mountain Power to install level-spreader drainage instead of traditional 12-hour retention ponds.

The technique Green Mountain Power used allows runoff to go into a long ditch lined with boulders. The water sits in the ditch, allowing silt to filter to the bottom while additional runoff goes overtop into vegetation. Periodically, the silt is removed.

Geoffrey Hand, a lawyer for Green Mountain Power, spoke for both the utility and the Agency of Natural Resources in defending the technique. He argued that state law gives the agency discretion to allow non-standard techniques and that the method used meets the state’s requirements for managing stormwater.

Hand noted that the agency monitors the stormwater drainage from Lowell Mountain regularly. Stearns countered that monitoring will merely allow the agency to detect damage after the fact, too late to prevent harm to the environment. He asked the court to revoke the permits.

Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for Clean Environment, which opposes the turbines, said the drainage is not working properly, as she and others have observed water making new channels as it comes off the mountain. The technique was not intended for use on steep slopes, she said.

Green Mountain Power spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure, who attended Thursday’s court hearing, said afterward that the stormwater drainage is working properly and ANR inspections have backed that assertion. She said the drainage technique took up less acreage than traditional stormwater retention ponds would have, meaning the project had less impact on the environment. The technique was not used to save money, she said, as it was actually more expensive than traditional drainage.

Green Mountain Power installed 21 turbines atop Lowell Mountain, finishing the project last December. Some neighbors and advocacy groups have tried to fight the project on numerous fronts, each time running into a wall.

Opponents were unable to dissuade the state Public Service Board from approving the project on the grounds that it would harm the ecology and wildlife of the mountain and its streams. Opponents have also been unable to persuade the board that the turbines are louder than permitted.

Last week, the state Supreme Court denied an appeal by six protesters who were arrested while the turbines were under construction.

Still pending is a dispute over the location of the property boundary, as opponents Don and Shirley Nelson argue they own some of the land Green Mountain Power is leasing from a neighbor for the project.

Matt Levin, spokesman for Vermonters for a Clean Environment, said opponents would have challenged more elements of the project if they had the money. They focused their efforts on the stormwater permits on the grounds that if the Agency of Natural Resources is allowed discretion in its approval of stormwater management, the agency will have too much latitude.

Source:  Written by Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer | Burlington Free Press | Dec. 5, 2013 | www.burlingtonfreepress.com

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 Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G 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 Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky