[ 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 company clarifies judge’s decision for Clark County 

Credit:  By J.T. Fey, Public Opinion News Staff | Aug 16, 2017 | www.thepublicopinion.com ~~

MINNEAPOLIS – A spokesman for Geronimo Energy in Minneapolis clarified the outcome of Monday’s wind tower setback hearing in the Third Circuit Court in Watertown.

Geronimo had requested a partial summary judgment from the court regarding the Clark County Commissioners’ decision to change wind tower setback requirements from 1,000 feet to 3,960 feet.

Judge Carmen Means did not definitively rule against Geronimo Energy, as was reported in Tuesday’s Public Opinion. Means denied the motion for summary judgment in an oral ruling issued with little explanation indicating she did not have enough information to make a ruling and that the decision will have to be made after hearing all the evidence.

Clark County regulations require a 1,000-foot setback from residences, but during a conditional use permit hearing requested by Geronimo, the commissioners, under pressure from citizens, placed a condition on the project changing the setback to three-quarters of a mile. That decision brought the legal challenge from Geronimo.

“We filed the motion for partial summary judgment hoping to abbreviate litigation and to drill down to the heart of the matter,” said Melissa Schmit, senior permitting specialist for Geronimo Energy. “We want to keep the project moving and protect the property rights of our participating landowners.”

Schmit said Geronimo has other permit conditions that will require judgments but that the setback requirement was “the heart of the matter.”

Source:  By J.T. Fey, Public Opinion News Staff | Aug 16, 2017 | www.thepublicopinion.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 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