[ 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

Lincoln commissioners dash wind farm hopes 

Credit:  John Hult | Argus Leader | November 23, 2016 | www.argusleader.com ~~

Lincoln County voted to bar industrial wind development Tuesday night, backers of a massive turbine farm say.

After more than two hours of public comments, commissioners in South Dakota’s third most populous county voted 3-1 to require a distance of three-quarters of a mile between wind towers and homes.

The distance is less than the one mile setback approved by planners last month, but wind energy advocates said the impact is the same.

“The setback requirement could very well shut down any wind development in the county,” said Brian Minish, a board member for Dakota Power Community Wind.

Wind backers could get a waiver from nearby property owners, but no turbine could be closer than 1,000 feet from a home.

Dakota Power announced a deal with Xcel Energy last week to provide 400 megawatts of wind power. Minish told commissioners that would be worth $4.9 million a year in tax revenue if the power came from Lincoln County, but said after the meeting that the turbines would likely need to go elsewhere.

The planning commission voted last month for a one-mile setback, strict volume limits and a requirement that a shadow flicker analysis be performed for any turbine placed in the county.

The commission backed the shadow flicker rule 3-1 and unanimously voted to increase the acceptable volume limit to levels suggested by DPCW.

All three changes disappointed opponents of the Dakota Power project, once billed as the largest wind proposal in the state.

We-Care South Dakota, the non-profit group organizing against the project on behalf of rural residents, had offered support for the planning commission’s version of the ordinance revamp.

On Tuesday night, We-Care director Winnie Peterson said her group was disappointed in the alterations.

The group’s members have offered hundreds of comments for well over a year about potential adverse health effects like loss of sleep, migraines and nausea. They also worry about a loss in property values.

“We don’t think our community was heard,” Peterson said. “We don’t feel this protects the health, welfare and safety of our community, which our commissioners are sworn to protect.”

Cindy Thomas, a retired nurse and We-Care member, told commissioners that low-frequency infrasound from wind turbines – largely inaudible to the human ear – can impact children and the elderly.

“The wind industry has known that fact,” but refuses to participate in studies, Thomas said.

Peterson said We-Care South Dakota will regroup and return to future meetings. The commission is set to hold another public hearing on the amended measures on Dec. 27.

Minish and project backers have consistently dismissed the claims of We-Care South Dakota, saying there is no reliable scientific proof that any setback further than 1,250 feet from a front door is needed to protect community safety.

“If you’re going to ban renewable power from wind energy, why don’t you just do the ban?” Minish asked commissioners after the setback vote.

Commissioners grappled with their decisions at length on Tuesday, with longtime county officials Jim Schmidt and Dale Long noting that the issue has become the most divisive in memory.

“This has just completely divided everybody,” Long said.

Schmidt worried aloud that rules more strict than defensable could draw lawsuits or the ire the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.

He also speculated that green energy-backing Sioux Falls residents at the county’s northern end – the “baby gorilla,” Schmidt called them – might vote down strict setbacks if their decision were put to a vote.

“We are supposed to have something that’s fair and equitable, and it would have to be defensible,” Schmidt said.

Commissioner Dan King initially balked at any setback lower than a mile, but relented in the interest of a setback distance closer to what opponents supported. With Commissioner Dave Gillespie recusing himself for ties to the wind farm, a tie vote would keep the setbacks at three times the turbine height.

King said he sees setbacks and noise protections as precautionary measures based on the testimony and evidence offered through hours of hearings by turbine opponents.

“You can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” King said.

Source:  John Hult | Argus Leader | November 23, 2016 | www.argusleader.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