In reference to your editorial of April 19, the wind turbine project proposed by the town of Lenox was rejected for these reasons:
1. A study showed the cost was too high, the return on investment was too low.
2. The site was not in anyone’s back yard, but in the watershed of the town’s reservoir. And it abutted the Audubon Sanctuary.
3. A study by a competent professional strongly suggested that blasting the rocky top of the ridge for the foundations of the huge towers, whether one or two or three, would damage the hydrology of the watershed in ways that could not be remediated.
4. In the unlikely but possible event that one of the turbines were to malfunction, hydraulic oil and lubricating fluids would be sprayed over a wide area and end up in the drinking water.
5. The access road would disturb more of the land than the foundations for the towers. Runoff from the maintenance road would further pollute the watershed.
6. And finally, existing restrictions on the watershed could be set aside only by an act of the Legislature, which was unlikely to happen.
The Eagle editorial’s implication that NIMBYism must not stand in the way of saving the planet is as irrational as it is unfounded. The hard-working politicians and administrators in the East have neither wind nor ridges in their backyards, so they pontificate to us out here in the Berkshires that we must (must!) accept wind turbines on every ridge if they say so. Or else.
No thanks, that’s not my idea of a free country.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding