LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME



[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

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

News Watch Home

Why a wind project approval has southern Idaho feeling betrayed 

Credit:  TIMES-NEWS EDITORIAL BOARD · Dec 14, 2024 · magicvalley.com ~~

The decision last week by the Bureau of Land Management to give a green light to the Lava Ridge Wind Project will leave a sour taste in its wake for thousands of Idahoans, as it should.

That’s because the decision was a bad one, made in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, businesses and residents in southern and eastern Idaho.

The agency’s decision clears the way for the company LS Power to move ahead on a scaled down version of a plan that will stretch across more than 100,000 acres of public land north of Twin Falls and include 241 wind turbines that climb up to 660 feet. To put that height in perspective, these industrial behemoths would dwarf nearly every human-made structure in the Magic Valley, fundamentally altering a landscape that has remained largely unchanged since the days of the Oregon Trail.

That’s not good for the region nor for its residents.

The proposal has never been very popular in Idaho – the state’s entire Congressional delegation opposes the venture as does the vast majority of Idahoans – and the end result will most likely be a series of legal battles in court.

The level of opposition – especially locally – was and is huge. Ranchers, environmentalists, tribal representatives and history preservationists found unusual common ground in resisting the project.

At its heart, the Lava Ridge project is at the epicenter of competing priorities, between promoting clean energy, safeguarding the environment and protecting historic sites such as the Minidoka National Historic area. The project also raises key questions about land use in the West, where federal decisions often clash with local interests and generations-old ways of life.

The Bureau of Land Management, of course, will take the brunt of the criticism, and there isn’t much doubt the federal agency made a bad decision on this one. The BLM, however, is an arm of the federal government. The agency is issued its marching orders from policy makers – those in Congress – and top administration officials. The BLM is just fulfilling its duty.

If there was one glaring error on the part of the BLM and its federal overlords, it was the seeming lack of attention to the voices in opposition to the project. Many, many people from across a wide spectrum of life in south-central Idaho voiced opposition to the project, including an April 2023 rally in downtown Twin Falls that drew hundreds speaking out in opposition to the project. The demonstration wasn’t just another protest – it represented a cross-section of Idaho society united in their concern for their community’s future.

Yet the larger wheelbarrow load of blame should rest where it belongs – with the Biden administration – as U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo both pointed out when they criticized the decision last week.

The administration developed priorities – such as a devotion to clean energy – from afar, without taking into account the unintended consequences of its choices – not to mention the will of the people who actually live here.

This disconnect between Washington’s policy priorities and local realities has become an increasingly familiar pattern across the West. That’s not good news for the region nor for the future.

The project’s location near the Minidoka National Historic Site – just 9 miles away – also should have triggered a pause among federal officials regarding the venture. Minidoka stands as a solemn reminder of one of America’s darkest chapters, where thousands of Japanese Americans were unjustly incarcerated during World War II.

The site’s power lies partly in its isolated setting, which helps visitors understand the desolation faced by those imprisoned there. Industrial-scale wind development would forever alter this historic context.

Those who support Lava Ridge consistently argue it will encourage energy independence and help Idaho’s economy. Advocates cite a huge amount of tax revenue – more than $200 million – generated by the project for the state.

While that is a lot of money, deeper questions regarding who ultimately really benefits from the project remain unanswered. The projected economic benefits must be weighed against potential impacts on tourism, ranching and other traditional economic activities in the region.

The future of the project, though, isn’t set in stone. Legal challenges have already been promised by opponents of the project and no one in the Magic Valley should expect to see 600-foot towers going up any time soon. Multiple conservation groups have announced their intention to challenge the decision in court, citing violations of various federal environmental and historic preservation laws.

Crapo said the timing of the decision “is par for the course for the Biden Administration” and expressed his intention to work with “the incoming Trump Administration to have this project reviewed thoughtfully and thoroughly.” His statement reflects a growing frustration with federal decision-making that seems increasingly detached from local concerns and realities.

The reality is that even well-intentioned priorities compete, and the voice of the people impacted should be considered – not ignored. In the end, the Lava Ridge project is a classic study regarding what occurs when officials grasp onto “feel-good” concepts – such as energy independence – and then ram them down voters’ throats.

Source:  TIMES-NEWS EDITORIAL BOARD · Dec 14, 2024 · magicvalley.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)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI BS M TS TG Share


News Watch Home

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

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Bluesky Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab