Last night we went to Perry to present results of a detailed noise analysis I completed for the Dairy Hills Wind Farm west of Perry. A pdf of that report is attached, please use it as you wish.
This is the 3rd town's public comment meeting I've attended as part of the SEQR mandatory hearings - Prattsburgh, Cohocton and now Perry.
There is a common and strong theme among the towns, and probably common to all of NY and the Northeast, if not the U.S. and worldwide:
1) The wind companies are accused of "coming in the back door" and doing back-room deals before the public becomes aware. If wind turbines are so good why is this so?
2) The wind company gets the Town to pass a windmill zoning law to permit industrial turbines. In the law is a 50 dBA noise limit at the property line, or residence.
3) SEQR review is required prior to enacting this local town law and should require an EIS, but either the Town does not do a SEQR at all (Cohocton Law #1 and also Perry, Law #1 for 2006) or declares "No Environmental Harm" and no EIS is required. Nothing is ever submitted to show the derivation of the 50 dBA noise number. Actually this noise level is widely found in urban areas and is much to high for rural areas (source: EPA).
4) The public wants to have town referendums and don't want it left to the Town Boards to decide the fate of the Town.
5) Environmental concerns are largely centered on a) Noise b) Aesthetics c)bird injuries.
Some environmental effects are unknown at this time - the extent of bird injuries in specific migratory zones, unique to each town; noise and/or flicker effects on dairy cattle and long-term human health.
6)PILOT payments are vaguely calculated, underpaid and probably not sustainable.
7) Pro-wind speakers almost always have not done any research of their own but merely repeat the prevailing propaganda.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Clipper Windpower to Deliver 125 MW of Liberty Wind Turbines
Carpinteria, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Clipper Windpower Plc signed a contract with a subsidiary of UPC Wind to deliver 50 2.5 megawatt (MW) Clipper Liberty wind turbines -- including their installation supervision -- and will provide operations and maintenance services for five years.
Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.
The wind turbines are to be used by UPC Wind for projects the company plans to develop in the northeastern U.S. during 2007.
This transaction represents firm commitments of 495 MW of Liberty wind turbines, with opportunity for a further 160 MW of Liberty wind turbines to be deployed into near-term Clipper development projects, and 2,165 MW of early stage projects.
Earlier this year, Clipper Windpower announced a strategic alliance for project development and wind turbine sales with BP Alternative Energy, a wind turbine sales agreement with Edison Mission Energy, and a wind turbine sales agreement with UPC Wind. (UPC Wind is currently developing more than 3,000 MWs of wind power projects.)
Clipper wind turbines are produced at Clipper's assembly facilities in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty machine is the largest wind turbine assembled in the U.S. and is the first to deploy a unique distributed powertrain.
In other news, Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.
Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.
The wind turbines are to be used by UPC Wind for projects the company plans to develop in the northeastern U.S. during 2007.
This transaction represents firm commitments of 495 MW of Liberty wind turbines, with opportunity for a further 160 MW of Liberty wind turbines to be deployed into near-term Clipper development projects, and 2,165 MW of early stage projects.
Earlier this year, Clipper Windpower announced a strategic alliance for project development and wind turbine sales with BP Alternative Energy, a wind turbine sales agreement with Edison Mission Energy, and a wind turbine sales agreement with UPC Wind. (UPC Wind is currently developing more than 3,000 MWs of wind power projects.)
Clipper wind turbines are produced at Clipper's assembly facilities in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Clipper's 2.5 MW Liberty machine is the largest wind turbine assembled in the U.S. and is the first to deploy a unique distributed powertrain.
In other news, Clipper Windpower is one of eight companies to win the Rising Star Award (one of 15 categories) announced by Platts for its 8th Annual Global Energy Awards. The awards are given annually to recognize outstanding achievement and vision in the global energy industry.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Invite to the next CWW information meeting
Cohocton Wind Watch
Informational Meeting October 19, 2006
7:00 PM Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave., Cohocton, NY
Now that Empire State Wind Energy has announced an alternative Wind Development Proposal that will pay out as much as ten times the money of the UPC scheme, why is the Town Board of Cohocton refusing to jump at the chance of receiving millions of dollars?
Isn’t it about time that the proponents of “so called” clean energy demand that Cohocton develop the best project that pays out the most money and will share the revenue with all property owners?
Do YES advocates and members really support wind power or are they just on the UPC payroll pushing a plan that will pay out PEANUTS?
The “NUTS” of Councilman Wayne Hunt are the empty shells of the Cohocton Tax payers. Why is he and Supervisor Zigenfus so hostile towards the Empire proposal? Could it be that more then mere collusion with UPC and actual corruption is the motivating factor?
Cohocton is not Jack’s and Wayne’s world. It is the home of all the residents. Now that Empire has committed to develop a community based project that would benefit all the citizens, not just a few UPC leaseholders, why is the Cohocton Town Board so determined to pass the UPC written and paid for Windmill Local Law #2?
Support a six month MORATORIUM on any wind mill law NOW!
Support Cohocton Wind Watch by attending our social gathering at the Redwood Restaurant on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM, $10.00 per person.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
(585) 534-5581
Informational Meeting October 19, 2006
7:00 PM Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave., Cohocton, NY
Now that Empire State Wind Energy has announced an alternative Wind Development Proposal that will pay out as much as ten times the money of the UPC scheme, why is the Town Board of Cohocton refusing to jump at the chance of receiving millions of dollars?
Isn’t it about time that the proponents of “so called” clean energy demand that Cohocton develop the best project that pays out the most money and will share the revenue with all property owners?
Do YES advocates and members really support wind power or are they just on the UPC payroll pushing a plan that will pay out PEANUTS?
The “NUTS” of Councilman Wayne Hunt are the empty shells of the Cohocton Tax payers. Why is he and Supervisor Zigenfus so hostile towards the Empire proposal? Could it be that more then mere collusion with UPC and actual corruption is the motivating factor?
Cohocton is not Jack’s and Wayne’s world. It is the home of all the residents. Now that Empire has committed to develop a community based project that would benefit all the citizens, not just a few UPC leaseholders, why is the Cohocton Town Board so determined to pass the UPC written and paid for Windmill Local Law #2?
Support a six month MORATORIUM on any wind mill law NOW!
Support Cohocton Wind Watch by attending our social gathering at the Redwood Restaurant on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM, $10.00 per person.
http://cohoctonwindwatch.org/
(585) 534-5581
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Take Time and Compare
We are totally baffled. After attending the Empire State Wind Energy informational meeting, we cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to hearing more about their proposal.
It seems to us that both Mr. Golisano and Mr. Pitman were very honest and upfront with their ideas and intentions of how their project could be so much more lucrative for our area. When the question of the possibility of a moratorium was raised so that we slow this process down and take our time to see what was best for all citizens of Cohocton, Mr. Hunt categorically stated he would never recommend such an action and that the board has been working with UPC for over 3 years to make this a reality. Why is it then that most of us non-lease holders only heard about this at the beginning of this year and after the fact that contracts had already been signed?
It was stated by Mr. Golisano that these lease holders would most likely have 1st chance to get the same "deal" and possibly a much better offer - so why do they not want to hear about this proposal that certainly would be a better choice for ALL land holders of Cohocton?
A few weeks ago, a letter was written that said "I am glad the members of the CWW now realize that wind power is right for Cohocton". Sir, you couldn't be further from the truth. CWW does not favor wind turbines and we personally wish they were never invented, but they were and it looks like they will be coming to our hills in spite of much opposition. If this is the case, then our elective officials have a duty and obligation to look at all offers. They need to negotiate the best deal possible. One that will benefit all property owners, not just a few!
We ask you folks that did not attend the October 11th meeting to please talk to those that were in attendance and obtain information that was stated to us. Real reduction in our taxes, lower electricity bills, a "bigger piece of the pie" in revenue for our town! General information about Empire State Wind Energy can be found at:
www.empirestatewindenergy.com
It is so important that we all take the time to compare what each proposition will do for us personally and as a whole for our community.
Gary & Pat Struck
It seems to us that both Mr. Golisano and Mr. Pitman were very honest and upfront with their ideas and intentions of how their project could be so much more lucrative for our area. When the question of the possibility of a moratorium was raised so that we slow this process down and take our time to see what was best for all citizens of Cohocton, Mr. Hunt categorically stated he would never recommend such an action and that the board has been working with UPC for over 3 years to make this a reality. Why is it then that most of us non-lease holders only heard about this at the beginning of this year and after the fact that contracts had already been signed?
It was stated by Mr. Golisano that these lease holders would most likely have 1st chance to get the same "deal" and possibly a much better offer - so why do they not want to hear about this proposal that certainly would be a better choice for ALL land holders of Cohocton?
A few weeks ago, a letter was written that said "I am glad the members of the CWW now realize that wind power is right for Cohocton". Sir, you couldn't be further from the truth. CWW does not favor wind turbines and we personally wish they were never invented, but they were and it looks like they will be coming to our hills in spite of much opposition. If this is the case, then our elective officials have a duty and obligation to look at all offers. They need to negotiate the best deal possible. One that will benefit all property owners, not just a few!
We ask you folks that did not attend the October 11th meeting to please talk to those that were in attendance and obtain information that was stated to us. Real reduction in our taxes, lower electricity bills, a "bigger piece of the pie" in revenue for our town! General information about Empire State Wind Energy can be found at:
www.empirestatewindenergy.com
It is so important that we all take the time to compare what each proposition will do for us personally and as a whole for our community.
Gary & Pat Struck
Wind turbine syndrome by Rick Bolton
There is some information from the UK and WHO that does show for conventional noise pollution (freeways and airports) that:
(1) chronic loss of sleep will seriously affect health and over long exposure is known to cause myocardial infarction.
(2) In combination with other effects, like annoying flicker or perhaps low-frequency sounds (which are very strong over a mile from the turbine) the health effects are more severe.
The US EPA has a nice and comprehensive study completed in 1971 that discusses modern noise pollution, not exhibited really strong till the advent of extensive freeways and jet airports after WW II. They point out that there is a vast difference between urban noise and rural noise, with all urban noise "man made", and highly irritating if not managed. So far every wind farm is trying to, or has sited their turbines with noise levels approaching urban areas with airports in the vicinithy, 50 dBA. This is completely absurd and brings tremendous noise pollution to the rural settings where these farms are placed.
So the story of Mr. Marshall in Ontario, with 5 large turbines within 1/4 mile, is not to be considered unusual and will be frequently repeated as windfams proliferate. At the Fenner farm I noticed all the turbines were synchronous - ie the blades pointed at the same angle and rotated at the same rate. The sounds therefore will add harmoniously and become stronger at "nearby" residences. "Nearby" does not mean close to the wind turbines since sounds refract, it means residences 1/4 mile away or so where the refraction and additive effects are worse. All this should have been accounted for in the wind farm noise analysis. If it was not, which it most likely wasn't, then I would think Mr. Marshall should have good cause to sue.
(1) chronic loss of sleep will seriously affect health and over long exposure is known to cause myocardial infarction.
(2) In combination with other effects, like annoying flicker or perhaps low-frequency sounds (which are very strong over a mile from the turbine) the health effects are more severe.
The US EPA has a nice and comprehensive study completed in 1971 that discusses modern noise pollution, not exhibited really strong till the advent of extensive freeways and jet airports after WW II. They point out that there is a vast difference between urban noise and rural noise, with all urban noise "man made", and highly irritating if not managed. So far every wind farm is trying to, or has sited their turbines with noise levels approaching urban areas with airports in the vicinithy, 50 dBA. This is completely absurd and brings tremendous noise pollution to the rural settings where these farms are placed.
So the story of Mr. Marshall in Ontario, with 5 large turbines within 1/4 mile, is not to be considered unusual and will be frequently repeated as windfams proliferate. At the Fenner farm I noticed all the turbines were synchronous - ie the blades pointed at the same angle and rotated at the same rate. The sounds therefore will add harmoniously and become stronger at "nearby" residences. "Nearby" does not mean close to the wind turbines since sounds refract, it means residences 1/4 mile away or so where the refraction and additive effects are worse. All this should have been accounted for in the wind farm noise analysis. If it was not, which it most likely wasn't, then I would think Mr. Marshall should have good cause to sue.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Wind Farms: Benefit or Burden? by Kathy Kriz (Cohocton, N.Y./Perry, N.Y.)
Watch the Video
Wind farm developers are offering major cash to Western New York towns willing to deal. However, even with financial incentives, there are tradeoffs which raise the question whether wind turbines benefit or burden a community.
Right now, traffic jams aren't a problem in Cohocton, Steuben County. Jobs at the Polly-O dairy plant and the old buckwheat flour mill are long gone.
However, now that a wind developer wants to move in, there are rumblings. Some neighbors view the wind farm proposal as an economic remedy.
Landowner Ron Moody said, ”What kind of income are you going to get for your school, your town, and your county if you don't put something in here?”
Others want to protect the serenity that drew them here.
Property Owner Dr. William Morehouse said, “I'm going to have three of these, if this goes through, within 1,500 feet of my cabin, my Shangri-la.”
In an example mailed out to Cohocton property owners, the wind developer says it could potentially invest more than $600,000 a year in the community. Plus, they would pay people who allow the wind turbines on their land.
A study www.savewesternny.org states that wind farm developers see a 26-percent return on their investments the first year, while a wind industry spokeswoman said it's more like 7.5 to 10 percent.
Perry Town Supervisor Jim Brick, said, “It would look like pretty near half a million for the town, per year. Is that enough? We don't know yet for sure.”
Some homeowners are worried their property values will plummet if wind turbines are built near their homes.
Wind farm developers are offering major cash to Western New York towns willing to deal. However, even with financial incentives, there are tradeoffs which raise the question whether wind turbines benefit or burden a community.
Right now, traffic jams aren't a problem in Cohocton, Steuben County. Jobs at the Polly-O dairy plant and the old buckwheat flour mill are long gone.
However, now that a wind developer wants to move in, there are rumblings. Some neighbors view the wind farm proposal as an economic remedy.
Landowner Ron Moody said, ”What kind of income are you going to get for your school, your town, and your county if you don't put something in here?”
Others want to protect the serenity that drew them here.
Property Owner Dr. William Morehouse said, “I'm going to have three of these, if this goes through, within 1,500 feet of my cabin, my Shangri-la.”
In an example mailed out to Cohocton property owners, the wind developer says it could potentially invest more than $600,000 a year in the community. Plus, they would pay people who allow the wind turbines on their land.
A study www.savewesternny.org states that wind farm developers see a 26-percent return on their investments the first year, while a wind industry spokeswoman said it's more like 7.5 to 10 percent.
Perry Town Supervisor Jim Brick, said, “It would look like pretty near half a million for the town, per year. Is that enough? We don't know yet for sure.”
Some homeowners are worried their property values will plummet if wind turbines are built near their homes.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Advocates for Prattsburgh update on their Article 78 against SCIDA
Yesterday our lawyer, Glen Pezzulo, made the oral arguments for the Article 78 in court. There will be a decision in about one month.
From the feedback I have received it sounds as though our lawyer was able to make a pretty good showing. It sounds like their lawyers were not nearly as prepared. However, anything can happen.
We should win for the following reasons:
1. We worked tirelessly to present the information initially and then we nearly killed ourselves to help the lawyer make a written rebuttal to their rebuttal.
2. We are right and we have piles of documents to prove it.
So now all we can do is wait. I have a file folder marked "New" in which I am filing all new information so that when Global comes out with their Final EIS, I will be able to respond with new information. Every other day I get new information about accidents, health and safety and wildlife.
Every day I get new information about another town that is fighting back -- another area of the world that is saying that the turbines aren't working.
So those of you who believe in the power of positive thinking, please focus hard in this next month.
I hope to find other things to do with my time while I am waiting.
Regards,
Ruth Matilsky
From the feedback I have received it sounds as though our lawyer was able to make a pretty good showing. It sounds like their lawyers were not nearly as prepared. However, anything can happen.
We should win for the following reasons:
1. We worked tirelessly to present the information initially and then we nearly killed ourselves to help the lawyer make a written rebuttal to their rebuttal.
2. We are right and we have piles of documents to prove it.
So now all we can do is wait. I have a file folder marked "New" in which I am filing all new information so that when Global comes out with their Final EIS, I will be able to respond with new information. Every other day I get new information about accidents, health and safety and wildlife.
Every day I get new information about another town that is fighting back -- another area of the world that is saying that the turbines aren't working.
So those of you who believe in the power of positive thinking, please focus hard in this next month.
I hope to find other things to do with my time while I am waiting.
Regards,
Ruth Matilsky
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Cohocton Wind Watch Informational Meeting
Update of developments over the summer, the factual record of events and the actions that will take place in the near future.
Oct 19, 2006 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave.
Cohocton, NY
Oct 19, 2006 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Cohocton Elementary School
Park Ave.
Cohocton, NY
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Pataki to sign bill stripping NYRI of eminent domain
RECORDONLINE/TIMES HERALD RECORD Oct 2:
Gov. George Pataki is expected tomorrow to sign legislation that would throw up a major obstacle to a huge power transmission line proposed from central New York to Orange County, according to sources.
The bill, authored by Sen. John Bonacic and passed by both houses of the Legislature, blocks New York Regional Interconnect from using state laws to take land by eminent domain to build its 190-mile line.
Pataki is expected to sign the bill at a Utica-area ceremony tomorrow.
Although thousands of people along the proposed route are against the project and support the bill, it was opposed by power industry-groups and key lawmakers who said it would discourage future energy projects.
Even with the legislation, NYRI could try to bypass the state and win new federal powers to allow it to take private land for the project. The company has also indicated it may challenge Bonacic's legislation in court.
Gov. George Pataki is expected tomorrow to sign legislation that would throw up a major obstacle to a huge power transmission line proposed from central New York to Orange County, according to sources.
The bill, authored by Sen. John Bonacic and passed by both houses of the Legislature, blocks New York Regional Interconnect from using state laws to take land by eminent domain to build its 190-mile line.
Pataki is expected to sign the bill at a Utica-area ceremony tomorrow.
Although thousands of people along the proposed route are against the project and support the bill, it was opposed by power industry-groups and key lawmakers who said it would discourage future energy projects.
Even with the legislation, NYRI could try to bypass the state and win new federal powers to allow it to take private land for the project. The company has also indicated it may challenge Bonacic's legislation in court.
Empire State Wind Energy public information meeting
Date: Oct 11, 2006 (Wed)
Location: Cohocton Elementary School
Address: 30 Park Ave.
City/State: Cohocton, NY
Postal Code: 14826 Start: 7:00 PM
End: 9:30 PM
Wind developer Empire State Wind Energy public and community information meeting on alternative Cohocton wind project. Tom Golisano and Keith Pitman presentation to Cohocton.
Location: Cohocton Elementary School
Address: 30 Park Ave.
City/State: Cohocton, NY
Postal Code: 14826 Start: 7:00 PM
End: 9:30 PM
Wind developer Empire State Wind Energy public and community information meeting on alternative Cohocton wind project. Tom Golisano and Keith Pitman presentation to Cohocton.
Supreme Court Oral Arguments Prattsburgh Article 78 against SCIDA
Date: Oct 5, 2006 (Thu)
Location: Hall of Justice
Address: Public Safety Building
City/State: Rochester, NY
Start: 2:00 PM
End: 5:00 PM
Hall of Justice Court House - Judge Galloway Supreme Court
Location: Hall of Justice
Address: Public Safety Building
City/State: Rochester, NY
Start: 2:00 PM
End: 5:00 PM
Hall of Justice Court House - Judge Galloway Supreme Court
Friday, September 29, 2006
CITIZENS' GROUP BRINGS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ACTIONS OF TOWNS OF ALTONA, CLINTON, AND ELLENBURG, CLINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND NOBLE ENVIRON
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc.
P.O. Box 415
Ellenburg Depot, New York 12935
Contact: Holly Garceau
518 594-7140
neighborspnc@yahoo.com
PRESS RELEASE
CITIZENS' GROUP BRINGS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ACTIONS OF TOWNS OF ALTONA, CLINTON, AND ELLENBURG, CLINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL POWER
Ellenburg Center, NY September 25, 2006 - Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., a citizens' environmental advocacy group, made up of community residents from the towns of Clinton, Altona, and Ellenburg in Clinton County, New York, has commenced a legal proceeding against the towns of Altona, Clinton, Ellenburg, the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, and Noble Environmental Power, challenging the failure of the towns, the IDA, and Noble to follow the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Noble plans to build 179 40-story-tall wind turbines in the three predominantly rural and wooded towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, in northern New York. The three towns and the IDA failed to give the "hard look" required by state law to the application by Noble Environmental Power, failed to consider alternatives, and failed to consider citizen comments made during the mandatory public comment period. The towns and the IDA failed to give an independent review to the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and failed to identify the many errors and omissions in those Environmental Impact Statements. The approvals of the towns and IDA rubber-stamped Noble's unsupported assertions and failed to protect the health and welfare of the towns' citizens, the natural resources and landscape, the wildlife, and the rural quality of life presently enjoyed by the residents of these towns.
The legal proceeding asks the State Supreme Court to review and vacate the approvals granted by the three towns and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency. It is presently scheduled to be before the court on October 6th.
--more--
Documents submitted in support of the litigation show that Noble's Environmental Impact Statements and the towns' findings did not satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act:
The legal proceeding seeks to have the court annul the approvals given by the three town boards and the county IDA.
Holly Garceau, President of Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., says that her personal experience refutes the claims by the wind power company that industrial-sized wind turbines are innocuous. Earlier this year she visited the wind farm at Tug Hill, in Lewis County, New York. Within a short time of her arrival she felt pressure to her ears and soon had a migraine headache. Physician and ecologist Dr. Nina Pierpont, a resident of nearby Franklin County, has documented the phenomenon of Vibroacoustic Disease, caused by industrial wind turbines, and ignored by Noble, the three towns and the IDA.
If the towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, had followed their mandates under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, this litigation would not be needed.
For further information, contact Holly Garceau, 518 594-7140.
Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc.
P.O. Box 415
Ellenburg Depot, New York 12935
Contact: Holly Garceau
518 594-7140
neighborspnc@yahoo.com
PRESS RELEASE
CITIZENS' GROUP BRINGS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO ACTIONS OF TOWNS OF ALTONA, CLINTON, AND ELLENBURG, CLINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL POWER
Ellenburg Center, NY September 25, 2006 - Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., a citizens' environmental advocacy group, made up of community residents from the towns of Clinton, Altona, and Ellenburg in Clinton County, New York, has commenced a legal proceeding against the towns of Altona, Clinton, Ellenburg, the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, and Noble Environmental Power, challenging the failure of the towns, the IDA, and Noble to follow the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Noble plans to build 179 40-story-tall wind turbines in the three predominantly rural and wooded towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, in northern New York. The three towns and the IDA failed to give the "hard look" required by state law to the application by Noble Environmental Power, failed to consider alternatives, and failed to consider citizen comments made during the mandatory public comment period. The towns and the IDA failed to give an independent review to the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and failed to identify the many errors and omissions in those Environmental Impact Statements. The approvals of the towns and IDA rubber-stamped Noble's unsupported assertions and failed to protect the health and welfare of the towns' citizens, the natural resources and landscape, the wildlife, and the rural quality of life presently enjoyed by the residents of these towns.
The legal proceeding asks the State Supreme Court to review and vacate the approvals granted by the three towns and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency. It is presently scheduled to be before the court on October 6th.
--more--
Documents submitted in support of the litigation show that Noble's Environmental Impact Statements and the towns' findings did not satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act:
The legal proceeding seeks to have the court annul the approvals given by the three town boards and the county IDA.
Holly Garceau, President of Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country, Inc., says that her personal experience refutes the claims by the wind power company that industrial-sized wind turbines are innocuous. Earlier this year she visited the wind farm at Tug Hill, in Lewis County, New York. Within a short time of her arrival she felt pressure to her ears and soon had a migraine headache. Physician and ecologist Dr. Nina Pierpont, a resident of nearby Franklin County, has documented the phenomenon of Vibroacoustic Disease, caused by industrial wind turbines, and ignored by Noble, the three towns and the IDA.
If the towns of Altona, Clinton and Ellenburg, and the Clinton County Industrial Development Agency, had followed their mandates under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, this litigation would not be needed.
For further information, contact Holly Garceau, 518 594-7140.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)