ECEAC: Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition

January 20, 2009 Press Release

2009-01-20T08:54:00.002-06:00

The plaintiffs who are challenging the conditional use permit granted to Hays Wind LLC last summer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment today in Ellis County District Court. The motion lays out in detail the reasons the plaintiffs claim that the decision was unlawful and must be reversed. The filing identifies dozens of landowners who were not given notice of the planning commission public hearing despite legal requirements that notice be mailed to them. Those include owners of land within the project boundaries, neighbors, and owners of mineral interests.

The plaintiff’s also argue that Hays Wind did not provide the information the Ellis County zoning regulations require before a conditional use permit application can be set for a public hearing. The memorandum also states that Hays Wind improperly excluded from its Conditional Use Permit application some of the land it plans to use for the wind energy conversion system in order to avoid giving notice to some of the neighbors and in an effort to deprive them of the right to file protest petitions.

Tim Davis, a spokesperson for the plaintiffs, said “We have long been saying that this process was corrupted and failed to follow the law. This summary judgment motion backs that up. We believe that the evidence is so clear that the Ellis County Commission, as it did with the cell tower conditional use permit near Victoria last month, should step up to the plate and simply agree the decision should not stand for the reasons our motion explains. Enough effort has gone into trying to defend the indefensible.”

Oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment are scheduled for February 27, 2009. If the court grants the motion, Hays Wind LLC will have the opportunity to file its conditional use permit request again, correctly, following a moratorium discussed by the Ellis County Commission at their meeting on January 19, if that moratorium is implemented. “If the law is followed the next time around,” Davis said, “we believe the conditional use permit will be denied.”

So Much Misinformation, So Little Time

2008-07-24T15:32:00.007-05:00

Much to my chagrin, Thomas Jefferson’s political philosophy seems to be falling out of favor in modern America. It’s terribly unfortunate as Jeffersonian philosophy offers much. For example, we all know that Jefferson enshrined the “pursuit of happiness” in the national conscience. Jefferson said more about happiness though, take for instance; “I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.”

His wisdom doesn’t end there. Wrap your head around this Jeffersonian insight; “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” Unfortunately, with the commission election and the decision concerning the industrial wind development right around the corner, it seems most of what is printed regarding the two, particularly as they relate to each other, makes it seem Jefferson just formed his opinion recently.

Opinions are defended with information (though often not formed with it). Unfortunately, when the issue is as politically charged as the election and as controversial as the proposed wind development just outside of Hays, this information becomes twisted, sometimes violently so.

Though it is quite likely many people have taken Jefferson’s advice already (at least on this issue), for those of you still reading, I urge you to check out everything I say and look up the information I discuss from various sources , those reportedly neutral and those from both sides.

Let’s begin by pointing out that it probably won’t matter what the commission decides. There have been so many problems with this process that the application will undoubtedly end up in district (and possibly appeals) court. As a result, this process will most likely be repeated yet again in a year or so. As such, whatever is ultimately decided will be decided by the commission in place after the election. Speaking of which, now you know why the commission election is so political and so contested (not to mention why some opinions pieces are so venomous).

I get why it is tempting to distort the facts or only present one side of them. Some have stuff to lose while others have things to gain. Take T. Boone Pickens for example. He’s “been an oil man his entire life”, until he found wind. Why the sudden burst of what appears to be environmentalism? I don’t know Pickens, but I do know this; oil companies such as Exxon boast a profit margin of approximately 8%. Most estimates place his potential profit margin in industrial wind at or above 25%. It comes as no surprise, that being a good capitalist, Pickens wants in on wind.

Why then does his campaign sound so political? That’s easy: without the government subsidies and tax breaks, industrial wind couldn’t make money at all, let alone a 25% profit. Makes me think he’s not so much concerned about transfers of wealth so long as the wealth transfers to his account. Without our money (the government) transferring to his account, wind isn’t profitable, and without the profit he won’t build, so he’s depending on us to lobby the government. Sound familiar?

I personally don’t get why people are so down on oil anyway. Oil built this country and more specifically, oil built Ellis County. Ever wonder what Ellis County taxes would be without oil? Taxes on oil are responsible for a huge portion of the county’s revenue.

Let’s do a little comparison. If it is built, the proposed wind development will (hopefully) voluntarily pay $600,000 per year in lieu of actual taxes. If that same capital investment were in oil, that figure would be more on the order of $12,000,000 and that wouldn’t be subject to the companies’ “generosity”. I’m all in favor of alternative energy and finding renewable alternatives to exhaustible energy sources, but I’m not in favor of just any alternative. If you really wanted to eliminate the country’s dependence on foreign oil, wind is not the answer (an infinitesimally small percentage of electricity is produced by oil). If however, you are willing to do just about anything, I suggest replacing all motorized vehicles with horses. Unlike wind, this would actually work, but my guess is most of us would not support such a move, and as such, you are also on to my point that doing anything is not what we need.

Even if I grant you that wind is the answer, not only for the nation and the state and for Ellis County (all different questions), I still don’t understand the commissioners’ insistence on this particular project. Many people have posited that there is something happening behind the scenes here in Ellis County, much the same way that there is clearly something happening behind the scenes of Pickens’ new found support for wind energy. Again, I can’t say for certain what is happening, but let’s take a look at what is known.

There are four wind developments on the table for Ellis County. Most all players involved recognize that without additional transmission lines, only one project can currently be built. Everyone also acknowledges that the one currently under consideration is by far the most controversial and most contested. Given that only one can be built for sure why do two of our commissioners insist on unconditionally supporting the one project that is tearing our county apart? For that matter, why does a company claiming to be such “good neighbors” insist on pushing though the only one of their three projects that will leave division and hard feelings in the community that will last for generations? Why would either of them risk harming the growth and lifeblood of Ellis County by placing the one project so close to Hays?

Let me leave you with a final Jefferson quote. “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Though Jefferson was at times quite frustrated with the press, he was rightly more wary of a government that isn’t open, transparent or responsive to the people. As a fan of Jeffersonian political philosophy, I also share his belief in the power of “We the people”. As such, I am optimistic that the people of Ellis County will become informed, utilize common sense and hold their representatives accountable for their actions.

I urge you to find out what is happening in local government, not just with industrial wind, but with the budget, the rule of law and adherence to regulations, the county building proposal and other county issues. Talk to the candidates. Study their positions and past record. Support a candidate that offers common sense solutions, vision and leadership in government, not lingering questions.

Something to Hide?

2008-07-16T13:18:00.001-05:00

(submitted to HDN July 16, 2008)

The recent decision of our County Commission to change their mind on requiring financial disclosures of appointed officials is surprising enough, but their reasons for doing so are mind-boggling. Board members threatened to resign if forced to disclose their financial interests.

Should we not view resistance to public disclosure as evidence of guilt? Are these not people whose resignations we should encourage, if not demand? As Commissioner Henman pointed out, the requirement was adopted specifically to address apparent conflicts of interest on the Planning Commission, and these are obviously the people opposing the requirement. When Dick Klaus says "You get people…on there for years and know a lot about the way (the board) works, you'd hate to lose them" he speaks for himself, not the community. Having personally witnessed 'how the board works' I would say these are specifically the people we need to lose – those that have been there so long they think they can do what they want without obeying their own rules or being held accountable for their actions. If they can't reveal their financial interests, they obviously have something to hide. Throw them out.

Dale Wing's assessment that financial disclosure will make for "an extremely difficult time in re-appointing members of the planning commission" is completely false. Many qualified people volunteered to serve on the board in June and were passed over so that Commissioners Berens and Pfannenstiel could re-appoint their pro-wind cronies – and now they have given these same people special permission to keep secret their leasing agreements with Iberdrola. How cozy.

The County Commission essentially thumbs its nose at state law by de-coupling the oath of office from financial disclosure. How can anyone objectively represent a community's interests in a development of this magnitude when they stand to gain financially from the developer's success? I have no appointed or elected responsibility and yet, as an employee of the state, I am required to make a conflict of interest disclosure annually – in case I might be conducting state research designed to benefit some company in which I hold a substantial interest. Why should people charged with drafting regulations to protect our community be let off the hook for public disclosure precisely when they are in a position to sell us all down the river for their own financial gain?

The obvious answer is they should not. This decision is an affront to open government and an insult to the citizens of Ellis County. And it is further evidence of the complicity of these commissioners in the corruption of county-wide zoning. As if we needed any.

Turbines can alter local weather

2008-07-12T10:07:00.001-05:00

(submitted to HDN July 12, 2008)

There are many serious implications of wind energy development when it is close to rural or urban residences and we can be sure that those anxious to jump on the wind energy bandwagon haven’t considered more than a fraction of them.

We have heard about the problems with continuous noise penetrating people’s houses up to a mile away and causing chronic illness. We have heard about the shadow flicker and strobing that can induce seizures and declining property values as people flee formerly peaceful rural environments to escape this large-scale industrialization. We have heard about construction impacts and possible damage to water tables, soil profiles and natural vegetation, not to mention bird and bat kills and wildlife being driven away. But it doesn’t end there.

A recent study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres by Princeton scientists used computer modeling to simulate the effects of a large array of wind turbines (100 of them each 325 feet high and spaced 2/3 of a mile apart) in a Great Plains environment. Parameters were set to mimic wind speeds and weather patterns typical of Oklahoma. The objective was to identify possible impacts on local climatic conditions.

The study found that large arrays of wind turbines actually raise nighttime surface temperatures in summer. Cool air typically pools close to the ground at night, leaving hot air to circulate at higher levels. Turbines disturb this thermal stratification and encourage the mixing of the hot air higher up with the cooler air near the ground, thus raising surface temperatures and eliminating the cool air effect at night that is such a welcome respite during hot summer weather.

This important result adds to other studies in Europe that reveal local changes in climate due to large arrays of wind turbines. In the coastal plain of Denmark, moisture arrives as very low-lying cloud and fog cover that either condenses out onto vegetation or falls as gentle drizzle. The turbulence caused by large arrays of wind turbines diminishes this effect and has actually reduced soil moisture in the region, causing farmers to lobby the government to shut down turbines during spring months so that crops can receive adequate moisture during critical growth stages.

There are many, many implications to consider before we rush ahead blindly with a massive industrialization of this county from which there will be no turning back. With all due respect, few of our elected officials are qualified to evaluate the full impact of these projects on our community - beyond the shortsighted economic promises made by the developer. This would require careful, balanced analysis by a team of unbiased, independent experts. I find it ironic that we are supposed to accept turbines in the interest of diminishing global warming (a contention that is highly doubtful) in the face of real evidence to suggest we risk raising our temperature locally and possibly diminishing our rainfall.

Stacking the Deck

2008-07-05T13:18:00.000-05:00

Once again, Commissioners Pfannenstiel and Berens have revealed their cronyism with wind farm profiteers by appointing and re-appointing Planning Commission members who are either known supporters of wind energy, or have familial ties to land leased for wind turbines. The public needs to know that a large number of other people volunteered for these positions – many of them educated citizens genuinely concerned for their community – not people simply trying to jump on the wind bandwagon for personal profit. None of these people, who might have provided more balance on the Planning Commission, people whom the commissioners may have assumed to be neutral or mildly opposed to the development in its present form, were allowed the opportunity to serve.

These commissioners clearly have no desire for a balance of opinion to be represented on the Planning Commission – they appear determined to railroad this project through over the dead bodies of any dissenters. The rumors of kickbacks and payoffs to these commissioners by wind interests are only rumors and cannot be substantiated. However, the balance of circumstantial evidence indicative of their corruption is becoming increasingly ponderous with every passing week they remain in office.

It does not matter much that Planning Commission members will now be asked to take an oath of office. It is merely one more confirmation that our appointed officials have not been following their own rules and regulations to date. Much damage has been done previous board members and doubtless many of those still present will make their conflicts public, but blithely continue with business as usual. Similarly, our two star commissioners will continue to ignore public concerns, make arbitrary decisions that benefit their friends and families, and mismanage the county’s resources and tax revenue until they are removed from office. The debacle of the Hadley Building deal should be evidence enough of their poor judgment and incompetence. Both Berens and Pfannenstiel have had multiple terms in office and a bounty of opportunities to benefit this community – clealy without doing so.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, it is difficult to deny that political change is needed in Ellis County – not simply to restore responsible government, but to prevent the whole county and its future from being sold down the river on a ‘good faith agreement’ with a foreign company. I urge everyone to become involved in supporting alternative candidates for County Commission this fall. We must extinguish the apathy that has allowed corruption and cronyism to permeate local government and replace it with increased awareness and vigilance of its operations. And we must take full advantage of the only legal means to restore honest, responsible representation. We must support and campaign for deserving candidates and make it a personal priority to vote for change in November.

J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.

Skywalker's Nightmare

2008-06-30T20:00:00.001-05:00

A letter from Margo Apostolas that has been submitted to the Hays Daily News:

Do you remember the first Star Wars movies when Luke Skywalker first entered the cultural lexicon? He lived an agricultural existence on a remote planet with his uncle and aunt. Now, do you remember the way you reacted to the giant machines that attacked his peaceful, agrarian landscape? It was shocking and brutal not just because a war ensued and people died but how they arrived so suddenly without any real warning. There were no Jedi warriors in place on the local provincial/county commission looking out for the Skywalker Farm. Nobody sounded an alarm saying, “Your very way of life is about to be threatened! Take shelter and – MAKE PLANS!”

Someday, we will look back on how the commercial wind farm turbines erupted on our landscape and spread throughout western KS and other plains states without any real thought to how to manage something so beyond our knowing. Once it’s gone, it’s gone…MAKE PLANS!

More Devious Zoning

2008-06-08T12:21:00.001-05:00

Submitted to HDN, June 8, 2008

It appears that the Ellis County Planning Commission is going to schedule public input for their new wind energy ordinance (read blank check for wind companies) at their next meeting June 25 – in a room too small to hold the likely number of people attending, and starting an hour later than usual. This is a calculated move to limit their exposure to criticism and counter wind opposition.

We should not be surprised. With a couple of notable exceptions, the ‘movers and shakers’ in this zoning commission are not there to serve the public interest but their own. Their sole purpose in volunteering for the board was to grease the rails for their own scheme to profit from wind turbines, with the complicity of their two cronies on the county commission. They plan to approve a permit application gerrymandered to deny residents their statutory rights to a protest petition. An application that declares, in essence, that the project has no neighbors. They want their money for nothing and their turbines for free. Let everyone else pay the price.

These board members have consisted ignored or dismissed all cautionary information and painstaking research supplied to them by concerned citizens. They have made a complete sham of the public input process. They have admitted their own ignorance of acoustical measurements, but then declined offers from a county commissioner to pay for scientific consultation that would help them draft a noise ordinance. They insist of forging ahead with their ‘non-regulations’ in ignorance. But this is no longer inadvertent ignorance – it is now calculated and willful ignorance.

These people will not take an oath of office, as required by Kansas State statute. They will not publicly declare their conflicts of interest – they or their immediate families have all signed leases with Iberdrola, as have virtually all the outspoken proponents of the project. They will not recommend any regulations that might safeguard rural residents against this massive development. They prefer to trust Krista Gordon and Iberdrola to ‘do right by everyone’. They are unconcerned that a foreign company, beholding to no one, will soon control more land in Ellis County than anyone else – all without purchasing a single acre! They themselves will likely have to ask permission from Iberdrola to hunt on their own land.

If nothing is done, this zoning commission will open the floodgates for rampant, uncontrolled industrialization of this county. No less than four projects (!) are now in the planning stages that will probably span more than 30,000 acres. Do citizens not deserve some prudent oversight and authority over this rampant, unregulated industry? If these people are not stopped, there will be no turning back and their legacy will last for decades, stifling all other forms of social and economic development around Hays. They will turn Ellis County into a sprawling industrial wasteland where no one in their right mind will want to live.

J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.

New Wind Application is an End-Run Around Zoning Law

2008-04-24T10:36:00.002-05:00

The new wind energy application by Iberdrola uses a ‘cookie cutter’ approach to delineate carefully selected sub-parcels of land within legal parcels for a Conditional Use Permit. The intent is to deny neighbors their rights to a protest petition, a right they have already successfully exercised under zoning law.

The stated intent of zoning is the protection of the property rights and quality of life of all residents. There is a statutory requirement in Kansas for inclusion of a protest petition clause in all county zoning regulations. It is implicit in zoning regulations that CUP applications apply to complete legal parcels, or the protest petition statute would be pointless. Those seeking to host turbines are now essentially claiming to be their own neighbors, and trying to deny adjacent landholders their legal status as neighbors. Is this not unscrupulous?

Nowhere in our zoning regulations does it say anything about protecting people’s right to profit from any development that might happen to come along, as Gene Bittel would have us believe. He expressed concern about passing wind energy regulations that might harm someone’s (or his) ability to profit from turbines. He fails to understand that the purpose of zoning is exactly the opposite – to protect existing real estate investments and quality of life from unsuitable developments that will detract from their value and harm innocent people.

It is clear from the folly of the last zoning board meeting that at least four, if not five, of the board members are dead set on gutting the ordinance submitted by concerned residents to regulate wind energy. They won’t take an oath of office (as required by law) or publicly disclose their conflicts of interest (as explicitly stated in the zoning regulations they themselves adopted) because they are all planning to profit from wind turbines however they possibly can. They have consistently represented their own families’ financial interests instead of the interests of the people of Ellis County. And they certainly don’t want to change the 1,000 ft. setback because that would spoil their plans to eliminate a protest petition by pulling turbines back just a bit more than 1,000 ft. from their property lines.

Iberdrola’s new application seeks to circumvent the spirit and intent of zoning law and will certainly be vulnerable to legal challenge in district court. If the County Commission grants them a waiver for early submission and then approves this application, they will be exposing the county to the same legal action that will target Iberdrola.

Moral Imagination

2008-04-21T19:54:00.003-05:00

The following has submitted by Jacinta Faber to the Hays Daily News. It has been slightly revised from the form that was posted on April 21.

A gentleman named G.J. Warnock described empathy as “moral imagination.” He viewed putting oneself in another’s shoes as one of the components of a moral compass leading to the good life. I am married to a philosopher, and as a family, we have spent many an evening around the dinner table discussing what living the good life means. When our kids were younger, our son tended to equate the good life with the number of toys he owned. His acquisitiveness was scorned by his older sister, who thought that there must be more to living the good life than acquiring things. She seemed to be more on the path of developing her moral imagination.

The industrial wind project is challenging the moral imagination of Ellis County. The situation reads as follows. First, there are one hundred plus families who are located in or on the border of the wind project and who feel threatened by having an industry located close to their homes. Second, we have land owners who want as many turbines as possible on their land to augment their income. Lastly, we have a wind company which is determined to place the industry in the same spot where a formal protest petition, as designed by law, was able to stop the first go around.

How can Ellis County use its moral imagination to resolve this conflict? Shouldn’t zoning take care of the situation? After all, as stated in the regulations, the chief purpose of zoning is, “To promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County, Kansas.” Can laws promote empathy in people? Much of the time we have selfish motives for keeping the law. We tend to keep to the speed limit to avoid paying a fine, not to expand our moral conscience.

In our zoning laws, for example, a 1000 foot setback for turbines from residences is required in Ellis County. If you have taken a trip east lately, you probably have seen the Smoky Hill Wind Project. The towers inspire awe in most people due to the incredible size of the blades spinning in the Kansas sky. Now imagine having one of those turbines 1000 feet from your doorstep, or as seen in the latest proposal from the Hays Wind Project, being surrounded by the turbines in every direction from your home. It would seem unwise to think zoning would stir our moral imagination.

What about the land leasers? One argument given is “It’s my property. I can do what I want with it.” Another is, “My Dad wants ‘em.” These arguments fall more in line with property rights and desire, but don’t speak to the “walk a mile in another man’s shoes” theology. In fact, the zoning chair is leading the consideration of the rules that could help determine the number of turbines he could profit from on his property during phase two or three of the project. He even went so far as to indelicately rub his fingers with his thumb (the money sign) when discussing the optimum setback to allow for the most turbines. Self –interest tends to dull the moral imagination.

Add to this, three more zoning commissioners with substantial interest in the wind project, aided by Iberdrola blowing hot air, and we now have a collective moral imagination dangerously close to withering on the vine.

Would a wind company like Iberdrola base its decisions for Ellis County on the Golden Rule? I doubt it, but if anyone has witnessed this in action, please let me know. Iberdrola would be a shoo-in for the number one spot in the Eight Wonders of Ellis County, if not the world. In reality, mega-corporations don’t become mega by doing good deeds, but by making mega profits.

This leaves us to our last resort: the county commissioners. It is time for them to use their moral imaginations. The law cannot demand that someone uses his moral imagination. The county commissioners are in the unique position to seek the welfare of the people of the county. They have been given an opportunity—and responsibility—through their elective office to exercise their moral imagination.

Jacinta Faber

Wind developers still circling like wolves

2008-04-17T09:44:00.001-05:00

(Submitted to HDN, Apr. 15)

These days wind developers circle Kansas like packs of rapacious wolves with a never-ending thirst for tax-credits. Allaying themselves with short-sighted landowners, themselves blinded by dollar-signs, they tirelessly harass rural communities, threatening peaceful country residents with forced industrialization, visual and noise pollution, safety hazards, and an end to the peace and quality of life they had come to assume was their right to enjoy.

In her continuing quest to flog her environmentally disastrous wind project in Ellis County, Krista Gordon has requested a waiver of the one year waiting period for re-application on behalf of Iberdrola. Never mind that more than 50 % of residents in the project area don’t want it and have signed a legal protest petition to stop it. Never mind that her lies, misrepresentations and attempts to bribe local government are now common knowledge. Never mind that numerous members of the community are consumed in an ongoing discussion on how to regulate large scale wind energy projects to protect people and the environment. Much better for the windies if they can get a waiver signed by two stupid old men with the collective environmental consciousness of a bulldozer – before any regulations can be put in place by educated citizens truly concerned about protecting the community.

First it was all hush, hush – now it's all rush, rush. The only reason the windies oppose a careful, independent evaluation of the community impact of their project is they know it would never survive one. The only reason they oppose the development of a sensible wind energy ordinance to protect public safety is they have no intention of following regulations or being held responsible for their actions. It is time, once again, for every concerned citizen to stand up and speak out against this attempted rape of our county by a Spanish corporation.

Conflict of Interest, Oath of Office, and Comprehensive Plan

2008-04-07T19:22:00.003-05:00

Jacinta Faber gave the following little speech to the Ellis County Commissioners as they were meeting in session on April 7, 2008:

Gentlemen of the County Commission,

I thank you for giving me as a citizen the opportunity to address you, as the governing body of Ellis County.

One of the distinctive features of American government has been the rule of law. We are not governed by the commands of a king nor by the whims of people seeking favors from their friends. Rather, we the people—through our representatives—make the law, and we the people accept the law as legitimate because the law we make is enforced uniformly, fairly, and without favoritism.

Although I have concerns about bringing the wind industry into residential areas of Ellis County, I come to you today to bring to your attention my concerns not about the wind industry, but about the governmental process.

Through you, we have accepted the words and thoughts of the Zoning Regulations of Ellis County, the Bylaws—Rules and Regulations of the Joint Planning Commission of Ellis County, the Ethical Principles of the Ellis County Joint Planning Commission and Staff, and the relevant state statutes. As you no doubt know, KSA 54-106 says that everyone appointed to an office shall take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kansas, and faithfully discharge the duties of ______. So help me God."

As you also no doubt know, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kansas has offered the legal opinion that taking the oath within a reasonable time after selection is a pre-requisite for holding the position. Although we would expect the commissioners of the Joint Planning Commission to uphold the constitutions and faithfully discharge their duties without having taken the oath, that the commissioners have never taken the oath is an indication of a disappointing lack of concern for the law of the land.

That lack of concern for the rule of law is also shown in the apparent unwillingness of the Joint Planning Commissioners to comply with the bylaws and the ethical principles that have been adopted. The “Bylaws of the Joint Planning Commission” say, and I quote,

Members of the Joint Planning Commission who shall legally have a conflict of interest or believe that they may have a substantial interest, as defined in K.S.A. 75-4301, in any matter that is on the Commission's agenda shall voluntarily excuse themselves, vacate their seat and refrain from discussion and voting on said item as a Commission member. Conflict of interest includes ownership of property or business in which the Commission is considering action, receipt of fees, salaries or gratuity from such business or businesses, or a family relationship to an applicant seeking Commission action. (“Bylaws—Rules and Regulations,” Article XI.)

And similarly, the “Ethical Principles of the Joint Planning Commission” say (and again, I quote)

To avoid conflict of interest and even the appearance of impropriety, Joint Planning Commission members who may receive some private benefit from a public planning decision must not participate in that decision. The private benefit may directly or indirectly create a material personal gain, or provide an advantage to an immediate relative. A member with a conflict of interest must make that interest public, abstain from voting on the matter, not participate in any deliberations on the matter, and step down from the Joint Planning Commission and not participate as a member of the public when such deliberations are to take place. (“Ethical Principles,” paragraph 6)

I am concerned about conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety because it has been publicly reported in the Hays Daily News and elsewhere that one member of the Joint Planning Commission has an immediate relative who would may benefit from decisions of the commission, and other members of the commission may themselves receive payment for having wind turbines sited on their property in publicly reported future stages of planned development. Yet these members of the commission have not excused themselves from deliberating and deciding.

The disregard for their own bylaws and ethical principles undercuts the legitimacy of the actions of the Joint Planning Commission.

Beyond the disregard for the oath of office and the appearance of conflicts of interest, another thing that seems to show disregard for the rule of law is the Joint Planning Commission’s lack of concern for a comprehensive plan for the county. Paragraph 1 of Article I of the Bylaws—the paragraph setting the very foundation of the responsibilities of the Joint Planning Commission—says, and I quote once more,

It shall be the responsibility of the Joint Planning Commission to cause the preparation, development and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Kansas statutes upon the authorization of the Governing Body. (“Bylaws—Rules and Regulations,” Article I, paragraph 1)

Yet the Joint Planning Commission has made no effort in its three years of existence to prepare or develop such a plan. Again, this sort of disregard for the law undercuts public confidence in the operation of government.

As the Governing Body of Ellis County, you oversee the operation of the Joint Planning Commission. I understand that zoning and the operation of the Joint Planning Commission are relatively new to the county and that beginnings can be hard. But if the Joint Planning Commission is really to serve the purposes set forth by the zoning regulations, the first of which is, “To promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County, Kansas” (“Ellis County Zoning Regulations,” Article 1, Section 1-102), then the County Commission must exercise its oversight function effectively. As a citizen of Ellis County, Kansas, I appeal to you to see that the Joint Planning Commission follows the law. I want to see the law respected in all ways, but right now we know that there are specific problems with taking the oath of office, with avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and with the legal requirement for a comprehensive plan.

Let us work together to preserve the rule of law.

Thank you.

Changes in Local Government are Sorely Needed

2008-04-02T08:09:00.001-05:00

(submitted to HDN Apr. 2, 2008)

According to recent quotes reported in the Hays Daily News, Commissioner Dennis Pfannenstiel now wants to abolish county-wide zoning, or at least put it to a public vote. How perverse is this? If the laws you institute for specific purposes don't serve those purposes, just repeal them. Just dismiss the zoning board and squander all the time and effort expended by volunteer citizens and board members trying to safeguard this community while they develop a plan for controlled growth.

If Mr. Pfannenstiel cared anything for the opinions of his constituents, he would never have forced zoning down everyone's throats in the first place in order to obtain a wind farm for his cronies. Now that the protections afforded common citizens by zoning law have been effectively employed to block this covert objective, he seeks to capitalize politically on the unpopularity of zoning to get re-elected. Does he really think the voters in Ellis County can't see through his blatant hypocrisy?

Mr. Pfannenstiel further revealed his ignorance of state law, if not his outright contempt for it, by publicly asserting that zoning board members were under no obligation to take an oath of office – and by extension, not liable for conflict of interest disclosures that would disqualify four board members from voting on wind ordinance regulations – because they are appointed, rather than elected, officials. Kansas State statute chapter 54-106 'Oaths and Affirmations' clearly states that all officers "elected or appointed under any law" shall take an oath of office.

Changes in local government are sorely needed if this county is to obtain responsible representation for its people. What we presently have is a callous exploitation of elected office by special interest groups with no respect for the law or the rights of common citizens. As a constituent in Mr. Pfannenstiel's district, it is my sincere hope that his candidacy is contested in his own party's primary, rather than in a general election that he is sure to lose.

An opinion on Evil-drola from New York

2008-03-29T20:25:00.003-05:00

March 27, 2008 by Jimmy Salamone in The Evening Times

What do wind developers look for in a county and its township before putting their cross hairs on them? My thoughts.

Iberdrola is the largest foreign wind company in the world worth multi-billions of dollars, then you have PPM Energy who is an artery off Iberdrola. Common sense tells me money is power in the political world. These companies will stop at nothing to make as much money as possible for themselves and their colleagues.

I think they scope out elected officials to see if they have any moral or ethical values, using a proverb like "they will fall for anything, because they stand for nothing." They found Herkimer County. They came in under the cover of darkness, behind closed doors and found their scarecrows.

A scarecrow is a landowner who signs a contract to have industrial wind turbine erected on their land for money, but they must sign a contract that says they cannot bring a suit against the developers due to any nuisances (ill-effects, though the developer says there are none) the turbines cause them or their family. They can't speak out, they have no mouth, they can't come forward, they have no legs. Even if they wanted to do what is right they can't, they are just scarecrows hanging in a field of weeds. After all these are just "wind farms" we milk the wind , sounds stupid doesn't it? It took a genius to mastermind this one, so no one pays any industrial land tax on a single acre of land encompassed in the footprint, thus the towns lose the land taxes. The only thing they are milking are the New York state taxpayers. It's perfect.

Then they have the non-participating homeowner stuck living within the project's footprint, citizens with great concerns about being triangulated with 400 feet high wind turbines, high tension wires going around their homes, rotors as big as a jet spinning on the skyline in front, back, and sides of their homes, and more importantly, people with medical conditions with potential adverse effects. The developers call these citizens the "N" word, "NIMBY" (not in my backyard), making it look like they're against wind energy and change. A total lie!

It would appear that the Iberdrola corporation and PPM Energy could care less about the citizens. I think they want total control over the land, as it means huge money to them. I believe that's what it's all about, money not energy needs.

Now Iberdrola , PPM Energy and the AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) are coming out with a book on how to fight NIMBY's. Don't take my word on it, ask Eric Blank, executive vice president of the Development Division of Iberdrola, or Sam Enfield, wind energy development for PPM Energy. It's pretty sad when New York state citizens are subjected to any sick prejudice for any reason, let alone for the idealization of money.

Jimmy Salamone3/27 The Evening Times

Wind turbines in the town of Hays?

2008-03-21T12:56:00.000-05:00

(submitted to HDN March 21, 2008)

Communications among Hays City Commissioners and the office of Planning, Inspection and Enforcement reveal that several inquiries have been received from land owners and local developers regarding permission to install wind turbines of various types within city limits. Not surprisingly, these communications reveal a prevailing uncertainty among officials on how to respond.

There is currently no permitting process for wind turbines of any size, nor any bylaws that regulate or define their appropriate installation or safe operation within city limits. The city is in the same boat as the county as far as wind turbines; they are neither specifically permitted nor specifically prohibited. How long can city council avoid addressing this issue?

The situation in Hays is by no means unique. All across the country, municipalities are grappling with the issue of how to regulate microgeneration from so-called 'renewable' sources. For example, a California judge recently ordered a couple to cut down two redwood trees that were shading a neighbor's solar panels, citing the homeowner's 'right to sunlight'.

Some might be surprised to learn that technologies promoted as green and good for the planet actually require some further destruction of it. They shouldn't be. All forms of energy generation have a unique environmental footprint and a substantial 'cost of harvest'. There is no free lunch. And as soon as we place a value on sun and wind exposure, conflicts over rights to access are bound to arise, as are conflicts surrounding the impacts caused by their harvest.

If a developer is allowed to install between five and ten wind turbines 50 feet high with 35 foot blades to help power a new senior's facility at the end of 33rd street what will this mean for adjacent properties? If PIE decides to permit these towers as 'accessory use' structures will adjacent landowners be prevented from building anything that might block their neighbor's 'right to wind'? Who would bear responsibilty for third party damages caused by flying turbine debris in the event of catestrophic failure? The owner, or the city authority that allowed its construction?

Will existing nuisance ordinances be sufficient to protect neighbors from the noise and vibration that can emanate from wind turbines and the annoyance of flickering shadows, all which can propagate well beyond property lines? Not likely. These nuisances are unlike any conceivable at the time existing ordinaces were drafted. Will the right to access a new form of energy supercede the rights of others to peace and quiet? These are the reasons a new ordinance is needed for Hays that specifically addresses the issues raised by these forms of microgeneration, both wind and solar.

Wind Swindle of Ellis County

2008-03-14T12:27:00.002-05:00

This letter was submitted by Keith Pfannenstiel to the Hays Daily News March, 5 2008

It is with some hesitation that I write this letter. As a local business owner I realize success of my business is in part dependent on the public credibility of the proprietor. Given the divisiveness of the wind development in the community, many business owners have decided not to risk speaking out in spite of their personal beliefs on the issue. That being said, I believe it is more important to take a stand for my community than to take a chance in letting the improper acts of some potentially harm us all.

As many know, I have been vocal concerning the inadequacy of the zoning rules to protect the county and those living with a potential wind project. In previous letters I have outlined many of the specific problems that plague the regulations. Until recently, though I knew there were problems, I simply could not grasp why so little had been done to regulate this industry or to protect the county and its citizens. In the effort to understand, I (along with others) began to document the involvement of county representatives and the calendar of events that brought wind developers to Ellis County.

What we discovered is disturbing. It portrays a government interested on profiting the few politically connected instead of looking out for the interests of the county as a whole. Before I continue however, I want this to be perfectly clear; this information is raised neither as an objection to wind development in Ellis County nor as an indictment of the many honest landowners in each project area. In addition, this is not intended as a statement against zoning. If done openly and with the interest of all of Ellis County in mind, zoning is a protection for everyone. If however, it appears that the process is manipulated to profit a few at the expense of others, then zoning must be revisited to give all its citizens protection.

Following are many of the documented facts that anyone can obtain with a little effort. Though there are undoubtedly a few minor errors in this documentation, the main points presented are accurate and verifiable. This is only a partial list, but it still paints a picture that is nearly impossible to deny.

2003
Sept. 15 – The first memorandum of easement agreements were recorded at the county courthouse by landowners hoping to site turbines on their properties.

Oct. 10 – An email was received by Ellis County Commissioners Vernon Berens, Dennis Pfannenstiel and Chris Channel from David Yearout, a member of the governor’s task force for wind development in Western Kansas announcing Mr. Yearout’s offer to make a presentation on county wide zoning.

2004
Feb. 28 – David Yearout discussed county wide zoning at the county commissioner meeting. Among those present was Lance Russell.

2005
May 9 – Resolution No. 2005-15 County commissioners create a zoning planning commission. Nominated to serve on the board were Jo Kraus and Lance Russell as co-chairs, Rich Weber, Gene Bittel, Dick Klaus, Jim Scheck, Leo Dortzwieler, Charlie Rohr and Kent Laas. Kent Laas resigned within a few months after being appointed and Gene Jacobs assumed Rich Weber’s position a few months following that.

May 23 – First meeting of the Joint Planning Commission. A few days later, Jo Kraus addresses Ellis County Commissioners while serving on the zoning board and states she represents the landowners with easements for wind development and petitions support from commissioners. Meetings with Krista Jo Gordon and landowners are conducted at Dana and Jo Kraus’s home.

Aug. 18 – Jo Kraus approaches city officials and informs she represents landowners with easements.

Aug. 29 – County commissioners Berens, Pfannenstiel and Channel send approval letter for 50-200 turbines and guarantees approval.

High Plains Journal publishes article on the possibility of a wind farm west of Hays and quotes former Ellis County commissioner Harold Kraus (father of Lance Russell), stating he has leased land for wind turbines and relates his dream of seeing all ridgelines in western Kansas covered with wind turbines and exporting power to more populated areas.

2006
June 6 – HDN reports Ellis County public “does not want zoning”

June 28 – Joint Planning Commission votes to approve zoning, despite overwhelming opposition expressed by the public in attendance. Jo Kraus, Lance Russell, Gene Jacobs, Gene Bittel, Dick Klaus, Jim Scheck, were in favor with Leo Dorzweiler and Charlie Rohr against. Charlie Rohr later explains that he now supports zoning, but he is also in favor of allowing landowners to do whatever they wish with their land.

June 30 – The terms of Jo Kraus and Gene Bittel expire. Gene Bittel is reappointed, Jo Kraus is not, but continues participation through emails to commissioners, county administrator, and county attorney.

Aug. 28 – Ellis Co. Commission adopts County wide zoning regulations with a unanimous vote

2007
Jan 21 – Perry Henman takes office after defeating Chris Channel in the only open election for a seat on the county commission. Many cite support for zoning as responsible for Channel’s defeat.

March 3 – Application for wind farm is filed.

March 10 – Leo Dorzweiler resigns as zoning board member citing “unscrupulous tactics” in the zoning of Ellis County and a “dictatorship approach.”

March 28 – Hearing for wind farm with zoning board. Krista Jo Gordon states wind developers are only interested in zoned counties.

April 9 – County attorney resigns from wind farm counsel, citing he has a conflict of interest.

May 18 – An article in the HDN states that wind specific regulations were drafted by the Ellis County Public Works Department, the county counselor who resigned for conflict of interest, and the wind developer. Jo Kraus makes the motion to adopt the wind regulations totaling 1 ½ pages, despite the fact that David Yearout proposed 26 pages.

May 21 – HDN reports with less than a year after implementation of county wide zoning, commissioners to vote on wind farm.

May 23 – Dana Kraus, husband of Jo Kraus, publicly states he collected the wind data from the anemometer towers for the developer, creating yet another potential of conflict of interest for his wife as a zoning board member.

June 6 – Ellis County zoning board votes 6-1 to support the conditional use permit with Gene Bittel, Dick Klaus, Gene Jacobs, Charlie Rohr, Kirk Dickinson and Jim Scheck voting in favor with Barb Anderson dissenting. Lance Russell abstained, stating a conflict of interest due to family ties.

Gene Bittel admits to the audience at the zoning planning meeting that he wants turbines on his land north of Ellis.

September 3 - Vernon Berens and Dennis Pfannenstiel, the two commissioners responsible for appointing the Z&P board and signing the letter of approval a year and a half prior, vote in favor of the conditional use permit with Henman (the only commission member not involved from the beginning) dissenting.
Berens states his vote is based on the recommendation of the zoning board
Pfannenstiel states his vote is for his view of progress.
Henman states he cannot support a project that places the county and its residents at risk due to grossly inadequate zoning regulations.

October 1 - Henman suggests a moratorium on new applications citing a need to develop a comprehensive plan and revisit zoning regulations for industrial wind projects to insure the county and local residents are not harmed. Berens and Pfannenstiel refuse to support a moratorium to revisit wind regulations or develop a comprehensive plan.

Residents question why a comprehensive plan is opposed by two commissioners since the Ellis County zoning regulations mention such a plan numerous times throughout the document and the vast majority of county planners state a comprehensive plan should precede zoning.

Zoning board members also refuse to consider a comprehensive plan.

Lance Russell has only recused himself for one vote despite being involved from the beginning with documented conflicts of interest. He continues to participate in the wind project as a co chair of the zoning and planning board, citing he has no land in project area and no conflict of interest.

Jan. 25 – Records from courthouse show Lance Russell obtained a home mortgage and 18.9 acres that is currently leased to Iberdrola (the wind developer) adjoining approximately 300 acres of his father’s land.

February 18 – HDN reports that the wind developers have been working on two additional projects, one north of Ellis and one in the southwest corner of Ellis County

The wind developer advises Commissioner Henman that although his land north of Ellis is not being considered for turbine placement, it is in the middle of one of the additional projects. Gene Bittel owns ground bordering Commissioner Henman’s land indicating his land is in the project. In addition, landowners in the southwest corner of Ellis County confirm that they have been approached by the wind developer to sign leases. Though the project area has not been publicly disclosed, zoning and planning board members Dick Klaus and Charlie Rohr own land in the area under consideration for wind development. Since there is no requirement to file leases at the County courthouse prior to an application, it is impossible to determine which land owners (including zoning board members) have been working with the wind developer and/or have signed leases for development.

Commissioners Vernon Berens, Dennis Pfannenstiel and Chris Channel appointed a majority (five out of the nine) of zoning and planning board members with a potential to financially profit from wind development in Ellis County. (Lance Russell, Gene Bittel, Jo Kraus, Dick Klaus and Charlie Rohr) These same individuals were responsible for compiling and recommending county wide zoning and the zoning regulations themselves. Some of them were actively working with the wind developer from the beginning, even as they performed these duties. Furthermore, these same individuals continue to serve on the board and make decisions regarding wind regulations and projects.

In spite of limited record keeping throughout the process, we show a clear and convincing calendar of events providing evidence that the process may have been violated. We have also collected other “off the record” documents such as potentially incriminating emails that are available for a comprehensive investigation.

Knowing what we have now presented, would the public have condoned these zoning board members taking part in the drafting and approval of only a page and a half of zoning regulations for wind development? Was it not apparent to the County commissioners appointing these members that this action opens the county up to allegations of corruption and cronyism? Could the zoning board members themselves really not identify the potential conflict of interest? Whatever the case, the county clerk states that not a single one of the members of the zoning and planning board have filed a conflict of interest form as required by law (K.S.A. 75-4301).

Regardless of one’s position on wind development, the citizens of Ellis County should be seriously concerned over the many ostensible conflicts of interest and apparent abuses of the political process for personal profit. The county attorney has been notified of these infractions and has stated his intention to look into the matter. If that process stalls, we must demand nothing short of a grand jury investigation to determine the depth of this suspected delinquency. To allow this process to continue without resolving these issues may result the county facing an expensive legal battle with no certainty whether or not these problems will eventually result in the entire zoning process being ruled invalid.

Undoubtedly the wind developers, implicated members of the political process and some blinded by profit will cry foul. They will most likely assert their innocence and question the motives of those seeking answers. I for one hope they are right, that there has been no illegal activity and everything has been “above the table”. If that is the case, I would also hope that they would join us in calling for this investigation to clear their names and vindicate the process. Unfortunately until a comprehensive investigation has been undertaken, in the minds of the public it will always remain as it seems, an unethical and possibly illegal manipulation of the political process for personal gain at the expense of everyone in this county.

Not wind farms, but tax farms

2008-03-14T06:11:00.000-05:00

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that wind power is a phony green solution that destroys the environment in the name of saving it. Never in history has an industry been so heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Consider the accelerated depreciation of wind farm assets. Conventional business assets depreciate annually, but always retain some value for taxation as long as they remain functional for income generation. Not so with wind turbines. At the federal level, turbines become tax-free assets form wind corporations after 5 years. No other business gets a handout on this scale.

In the case of the Hays project, let's assume an asset value of $500 million for 'phase one' and an initial assessed value of 60%, or $300 million. Assuming a mill levy of 1.5 % the project should pay $4.5 million in taxes to local government their first year of operation, declining with annual depreciation thereafter. (No wonder they offer $500,000 in lieu of taxes!) Due to accelerated federal depreciation, they can reduce their income tax payments by around $175 million over this period. Since state income tax is calculated on federal payments at a 7.35% marginal rate, Kansas will chip in $12.8 million in tax breaks over the same period. If you own any kind of business, you have to be jealous.

Now let's look at the production tax credit. If renewed by Congress, it would amount to 2 cents per kwh. In terms of energy, this is like the federal government allowing oil producers to sell 2 out of every 5 barrels of oil they produce tax-free - under the table as it were. That would mean million's of dollars of tax-free money for Iberdrola annually - above and beyond all the tax breaks they would get on their remaining income - and all because of politician's generosity with your tax money.

Think you've paid enough? You're not finished yet. Because even with all these subsidies, wind power is far more expensive than conventional power, so you can expect a minimum 50 % increase in power bills over the next five years as utilities pass on the higher price of wind energy - and the increased costs associated with wind power distribution and integration - to their rate-payers.

Neighbors of wind farms invariably see their property values decrease and their residences become more difficult, or even impossible, to sell. However, because of the way regional property taxes are calculated, their property assessments typically increase as a result of wind 'development' and they end up paying higher property taxes, while gaining nothing but annoyance, financial damage, and environmental degradation from the project. So whenever you drive by a wind farm be sure to admire the view. You're paying for it, and so is everyone living anywhere near it.

A Compromise on Wind Turbines ?

2008-03-05T05:24:00.000-06:00

The meeting of the Zoning Board last Wednesday night marked a turning point for the wind energy debate in Ellis County. It was the first time some form of compromise seemed remotely possible. If turbines are kept far enough away from residents opposed to them, opposition to the project could be withdrawn.

The proposed Wind Energy Ordinance, drafted and submitted by myself on behalf of the ECEAC, sets out responsibilities for any developer of an industrial scale wind project in the county. The regulations provide residents with reasonable assurances that their rights and environment will be protected with respect to both inevitable and potential impacts. Only two of these were discussed at the meeting: noise and setbacks.

We heard much confusing discussion about noise and decibels, sound and infrasound - a highly technical subject that few people present, if any, were able to fully comprehend. I would like to respond to remarks made by Dick Klaus who suggested that any noise ordinance should apply to all sources of sound, not just wind turbines. I agree that a general noise ordinance for the county would be a progressive step forward. However, the impulsive, aerodynamic nature of the sound produced by wind turbines cannot be compared to the sounds produced by farm equipment, transient traffic noise, or other forms of machinery.

Normal motorized machinery does not sweep more than an acre of air at a height of 400 feet with blade tips approaching speeds of 200 mph. It does not create pulsating, aerodynamic disturbances that result in penetrating, low frequency wave forms that can propagate more than a mile, under suitable atmospheric conditions. This is not noise you can hear as much as vibration you can feel. We are talking about waves of energy that can penetrate buildings and cause objects to resonate, depending on their unique resonation frequency, just like crystal can be shattered by a sound wave that matches its resonation frequency. Any discussion of decibels measured in the auditory range is completely irrelevant to these concerns. However, a consistent audible hum (single tones in the frequency of 100-600hz) can also propagate from wind turbines as a result of resonation of the gear box and torque arm bring transferred to the rotor and then radiated into the environment. This is similar to the hum of a large transformer, only on a much greater scale.

Lance Russell asked me for some evidence that people had been adversely affected by turbines placed too close to their residences. In response, I have submitted a package of material at the Environmental Office that contains the testimony and personal diaries of families who have been driven from their homes by turbine noise in Canada, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Italy and Maine. I have also included 5 selected abstracts of papers presented at the 2nd International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise held in Lyon, France, September 2007. This conference was attended by 150 presenters from 24 different countries. I have further included another abstract and two complete papers published in peer-reviewed journals that explain the unique nature and behavior of wind turbine noise under various atmospheric and topographic conditions. I can make copies available to anyone who is interested. It is my hope that the zoning board will take the time to review this material.

Anyone who doubts that turbines pose sufficient risk to require setbacks of half a mile from property lines should watch the video posted last week of a turbine exploding in Denmark due to its brakes failing under high wind conditions: http://tinyurl.com/yuhkw3. The turbine was only 200 feet tall, but debris was thrown as far as 1,600 feet.

We need a noise ordinance that is derived from scientifically accepted procedures

2008-03-04T12:35:00.000-06:00

This letter is submitted by longtime Ellis County resident, Jacinta Faber:

I came away from last week's zoning commission meeting concerned about the lack of concern shown by our commission when it comes to a noise propagating industry being placed next to people's homes. It seems like 2007 all over again, just when I was hoping we could move into a more enlightened 2008.

A resident presented a proposed wind ordinance to the commission for its consideration. In the proposed ordinance, there are noise limitations (40dBA) for night time.

According to the World Health Organization, a maximum of 30dB(A) for continuous background noise is recommended for healthy sleep. Individual noise events exceeding 45dB(A) should be avoided. The WHO cautions that sustained noise at 45dBA or greater is cause for grave concern.

It is the noise at these levels, which can promote arterial ischemia and coronary incidents. The representative for Iberdrola, a Spanish company seeking to make money off the Hays wind project, stated the wind project was designed to allow for 45dB(A) at night.

Is it any wonder that we are pleading for social justice?

The corporate representative for the Iberdrola responded to this proposed noise limitation by insisting that there will be little noise, saying that the 400-foot turbines are quiet. Earlier this week, she referred to the wind turbine as a lullaby. I guess if your routine is to put your baby to sleep with an Ozzy Osborne heavy metal anthem, the turbine noise at night will be a welcome reprieve from those pesky crickets and hoot owls that have plagued your sleep in the past. If they are as quiet as that company employee contends, Iberdrola should have no problem accepting the noise limits proposed in the noise ordinance.

And Iberdrola would have no need to pay people to accept the good-neighbor agreements, which give them easements for noise levels exceeding 55dBA at night.

Something is very fishy here. If I sign the good-neighbor agreement offered by Iberdrola, I am recognizing and accepting conditions -- noise levels exceeding 55dBA -- which will cause my family and neighbors harm.

The corporate representative said her company did its own noise study last May.

Though Iberdrola has not been forthcoming with the results of that study, I believe that to protect the people of Ellis County we instead need an unbiased, independent, third-party noise study.

Most disconcerting for me is that our zoning commissioners seemed to show skepticism about the need for restricting noise, though it was unclear whether their skepticism extended to restricting noise from any source or restricting noise from only wind turbines.

Though I have expressed some frustration with the zoning commission, I do know that the zoning commissioners are all volunteers who generously give their time -- and I am grateful for their service.

On the other hand, the county commissioners are elected and are paid for their service, and they are ultimately responsible to us for properly accepting, modifying or rejecting proposed ordinances. If our elected county commissioners do not have the expertise or time to develop a meaningful noise ordinance with real teeth, it's time that we hire consultants with expertise in the areas of noise and health.

For our families' health and the responsible future of our county, we must have a noise ordinance derived from scientifically accepted procedures.

This is necessary in order to provide us with a foundation for making sound ethical judgments.

We should not place our children's health in the hands of a wind industry corporate spokesperson, one who is hungry for profits, big on spin and short on facts.

Submitted by:
Jacinta Faber
1540 Yocemento Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Proposed Wind Energy Ordinance

2008-02-11T15:13:00.001-06:00

The Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition have proposed an ordinance to the zoning board that would regulate wind energy development in the county to protect citizens, the environment, and the common good of community. The regulations were drafted from zoning laws of counties in other states experienced with wind energy and follow recommendations set forth in the Governor's guidelines for wind energy development in Kansas.

Given the unprecedented scale and impact of this development, no one can reasonably deny that such regulations are needed. In fact, the need for most of these regulations has been implicitly recognized by Iberdrola in their own "Good Neighbor Agreement" in which they request easements for noise, shadow flicker, communications interference, construction impacts, etc. The proposed ordinance explicitly provides for such mitigation agreements with a developer. However, it is the Coalition's position that the burden should be on the developer to abide by explicit regulations and conditions, rather than on residents to accept or reject an arbitrary proposal put forth by the developer.

The proposed regulations distinguish between small hobby-type turbines, personal turbines for farm use, and large industrial-scale wind energy facilities. Developers of industrial facilities would be obliged to follow regulations in the following areas, among others:

• Turbine setbacks from homes, property lines and sensitive areas
• Mitigation of soil erosion during construction
• Restoration of roads and bridges post-construction
• Preservation of water quality
• Restoration of any communication signal loss
• Limitation of noise pollution
• Electrical safety
• Deposition of adequate bonds to cover decommissioning
• Insurance requirements

The Coalition has repeatedly stated that it is not opposed to wind energy provided it is properly sited and responsibly developed. The proposed regulations do not rule out a wind energy facility in Ellis County, but simply ensure it will be sited so as to minimize negative impacts on the community, rather than simply to maximize profitability for the developer.

Proponents can argue that some of the proposed regulations are too stringent, but they cannot argue that they are not needed. The specifics can be debated, but a public consensus could be reached. To proceed with this development as is, without any regulatory control, would grant Iberdrola free rein to do as they please on 10,000 acres, without holding them to any environmental standards, and without providing the community any legal recourse in worst-case scenarios. Do we really need the development that badly?

Industrial wind: a failure written in the European statistics

2008-01-31T08:42:00.000-06:00

(Adapted from www.wind-watch.org)

Author: Fédération Environnement Durable (Federation for a Sustainable Environment)

[from “Eolien industriel: un échec en filigrane dans les statistiques Européennes”]

Does large-scale development of industrial wind energy actually reduce the consumption of fossil fuels or emission of CO2?

Comparison of per-capita wind and thermal electricity production and CO2 emissions in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and France.

Germany — most industrial wind facilities in the world (18,400 MW in 2005) –
2005: 10.6 tonnes CO2 per capita, 6.4 tonnes from electricity
190% increase per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
9% increase per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
1% increase per capita CO2 from electricity 2000 to 2005

Denmark — highest percentage of industrial wind in the world (18% of production) –
2005: 9.3 tonnes CO2 per capita, 5.5 tonnes from electricity
54% increase per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
8% decrease per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
11% decrease per capita CO2 from electricity 2000 to 2005

Spain — second most industrial wind facilities in the world (10,000 MW in 2005) –
2005: 8.5 tonnes CO2 per capita, 3.8 tonnes from electricity
317% increase per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
41% increase per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
10% increase per capita CO2 from electricity 2000 to 2005

France — virtually no industrial wind (760 MW in 2005) –
2005: 6.6 tonnes CO2 per capita, 2.6 tonnes from electricity
~0% increase per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
19% increase per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
1% decrease per capita CO2 from electricity 2000 to 2005

There are no meaningful differences in standard of living among these countries. Note that Denmark, with the highest percentage of its power produced by wind, is forced to export 85% of it to neighboring countries – mostly Sweden – because so much of it is produced when it isn't needed. Their decrease in CO2 emission is only possible because they are now importing conventionally generated power from neighboring countries when their wind doesn’t blow. Denmark's consumers pay the highest price for electricity in Europe and endure a blighted landscape – without achieving any environmental benefits. It is also notable that France's status as the lowest per capita emitter of CO2 in Europe is achieved primarily through reliance on efficient nuclear plants.

Vandalism by wind proponents is very symbolic

2008-01-25T14:05:00.000-06:00

(submitted to hays Daily News Jan. 25, 2008)

Following the zoning meeting last Wednesday night, certain wind proponents were apparently not satisfied with Gene Bittel's rant to go after anti-wind signs for compliance with zoning regulations. They completely destroyed a two-sided 4' by 8' sign worth approximately $500, shattered the 4x4 uprights, and piled the lumber on an adjacent property some 200 yards down the road.

We already knew that wind proponents had no concern for their neighbor's opinions or enjoyment of property. This act is proof positive they have no respect for property either. This particular sign, that happens to belong to an elderly grandmother, had been repaired or reconstructed three times following previous acts of vandalism that included the use of spray paint, razor blades, and a shotgun.

The destruction of this sign is very symbolic. It says,
"We don’t care what you think - about us or the wind project."
"We don't care about your property rights."
"We don't care about your constitutional right to freedom of speech."
"We will have our turbines and damn you if you don’t like it."
"We will destroy you if you get in our way."

The people of Hays and Ellis County should take careful note of the character of those they are about to entrust to oversee a multimillion dollar industrial development spanning 10,000 acres that will change the face of this county forever and saddle it with massive liabilities. They should also ask themselves what standards of responsibility and stewardship for the local environment they can expect from those who have such little respect for their neighbors in their own community.

Letter to the Editor: Wichita Eagle, Jan. 7th, 2008

2008-01-10T05:33:00.000-06:00

Letter in response to Mr. Scholdfield's editorial of January 2, 2008 "State poised for new wind energy era."

Dear Mr. Scholfield,

In your obviously promotional generalities and glowing report on the wind industry, "State poised for new wind energy era", you neglected to mention a few facts and details that might interest some of your readers.

The risk that Westar and other utilities understand is that electricity has two components energy and capacity. While wind can produce energy, it has no true capacity, which by definition is the ability to produce energy on demand. Thus every MW of wind energy has to be backed up with conventional energy. No wind=No power. In addition, while wind is often described as being 44% efficient, in reality it often produces one third or less of its name plate power. In the summer heat wave of 2006, Sunflower Electric received less that 3% of the power it was supposed to be receive. Texas only factors in an actual year round use of 7% to 8% of name plate power because the power cannot be produced when it's needed at peak load times.

The economic development that is frequently touted by the wind developers amounts to payments for a few landowners, (Elk River has 5 landowners, 4 of which are absentee), and no taxes since wind developments are exempt from property taxes in Kansas. The neighbors of these industrial wind complexes in the Smoky Hills and Elk River and other proposed complexes have been and continue to be vehemently opposed to the complexes due to ecological, safety, health and landscape impacts. There are NO State or Federal regulations to protect them. The idea of irreversibly altering 8,000 acres to produce possibly 120MW of unreliable energy at a 35% to 40% efficiency is suspect, when a conventional plant can produce 1200MW on a site of several hundred acres, is 85% to 90% efficient, and produces energy 24/7 on demand.

The dubious 'payments in lieu of taxes' that developers offer countys is tenuous at best since even with a written agreement they legally are a 'payment without consideration' and cannot be enforced. These have been called 'bribes' by some zoning experts.

The construction jobs mentioned are transient with both Elk River and Smoky Hills being constructed by out of state workers driving out of state vehicles. Neighbors to Elk River can count 7 jobs, all held by workers who live in Wichita . In both cases, there is an on-site rock quarry and on-site cement plant which saves local contractors the bother of the extra business.

The 'experts' at the 'energy summit' in Topeka, formerly called a Wind Energy Conference, are all connected to and paid by the wind industry. One such expert explained why Texas was doing well with wind when I attended in 2005. He stated the key was to levy a high RPS requirement with stiff penalties and NOT allow less expensive renewable sources such as hydro-energy to be counted in the percentage that utilities were mandated to buy.

Concerning tourism, as more industrial complexes go up, they will be places to avoid, not travel destinations, as Europe as discovered. Europeans have voted Industrial Wind Developments the "Number One Eyesore" out of the top 10 listed.

There are also very real ecological issues that make some places more suitable for Industrial Wind Complexes, provided the community wants them, than the prairie.

In the interest of maximum reality education concerning the wind energy and the wind industry, I would suggest you undertake having an Industrial Wind Complex of 50 to 100 turbines built next to your neighborhood or suburb. Have your community hooked up to that complex and rely solely on that source of power for a year. Keep track of the developer s promises, where the money comes from and goes to. After a year of actual experience, write another article on wind energy; the number of hours/day & days/year that you actually had adequate energy, the cost involved, subsidies paid, jobs that local people fill, your adjustment to the noise, lights, shadow flicker, your neighbors opinion of you, and which direction your property values are headed. That would be a truly interesting article.

For any of your readers who are interested in wind energy facts that are not supplied by the wind developers, check out:
www.windaction.org
www.protecttheflinthills.org
www.countryguardian.net
Or contact me and I'll be happy to give you a tour of the prairie and discuss real facts with you.

Rose Z. Bacon
1181 Four Mile Road
Council Grove, KS 66846
Kansas Flint Hills

Wind energy headline doesn't cut to real chase

2008-01-06T14:06:00.000-06:00

From Ellis County resident, Jacinta Faber:

The headline in Thursday's HDN, Poll: Public Favors Wind Energy, might appear as a mandate for the 100-plus families situated in western Ellis County to stop opposing the proposed wind project.

This might seem like a clear message that most Kansans would want 400-foot turbines situated next to their homes, or even better, next to other people's homes. Claiming that Kansans favor wind energy indicates little about how to resolve logistical issues concerning the proper establishment of wind industry.

We have been taught in school that the way a question is asked influences the way a person answers it. If a poll were conducted with the question, "Do you support the treatment of raw sewage?" undoubtedly the majority of Kansans would respond in the affirmative. It would not follow that the majority of Kansans would want a treatment plant next to their homes.

In the same vein, I believe the number of positive responses given by Kansans regarding wind power would decrease significantly if they were asked if they would want an industrial wind plant placed 1000 feet from their homes.

Since the beginning of this debate, I never have stated I am against wind power. My concern has been about the noise industrial wind turbines produce.

What I would like to see on the front page of the HDN is this headline: "Wind Ordinance Adopted By The Trempealeau County (Wisconsin) Board." The Trempealeau county officials have taken their responsibility for the protection of their citizens seriously. The noise section included in the ordinance mandates a 1-mile setback between residences and industrial size turbines. I bet if the people of Trempealeau County were to be polled, the majority would support wind energy, too.

Submitted by:
Jacinta Faber
Hays, Kansas

Property Rights Versus the Common Good

2007-12-15T12:44:00.000-06:00

"Farmers have a right to do what they want on their own land."

It is a statement we have heard numerous times from those seeking to profit from the placement of wind turbines in Ellis County. It was stated to me personally by Lance Russell as the reason he got involved with zoning in Ellis County, no doubt parroting the views of his step-father, Harold Kraus, and it has been stated publicly by Gene Bittel, current chair of our zoning board, and by Charlie Rohr, another zoning board member.

Regardless of any merits or pitfalls of wind energy, I would point out that there are many legal limitations to what people can and cannot do on their own land - farmland or otherwise - even without zoning. You cannot hunt wild game out of season, or without a license, simply because it happens to occur on your property. You cannot divert water courses or damn up streams without obtaining special permits from the appropriate authorities. You cannot willfully contaminate ground water with toxic substances. And you cannot cultivate marijuana or construct a still to produce your own whisky.

These laws were enacted to preserve the environment, conserve society's public resources, and protect against perceived human health and safety hazards. They exist because many activities cause impacts far beyond the actual property on which they occur. The same is true for wind turbines. Those demanding to do whatever they want on their own land essentially seek to ignore the common good and the interests of society in pursuit of their own personal gain.

When we introduce county-wide zoning to the equation, we add a layer of complexity. We further diminish individual property rights in order to give local government more control over the nature of property use. Zoning becomes increasingly necessary as communities grow because the potential for conflicts over land use increases with population density and development. But in return, zoning provides some guarantee about what is reasonable to expect from one's neighbors. You lose freedom as a property owner, but you gain rights as a neighbor. As previously pointed out by Mr. Schmeidler, without this give-and-take, zoning law would not be constitutional.

Thus it is exceedingly remarkable that members of any zoning board would espouse the idea that property owners should be able to do whatever they please on their own land. It belies a complete ignorance of the very fundamental principles of zoning. It is therefore not surprising that these same people should approve a conditional use permit for a communications tower that is unfairly rigged to deny neighbors any recourse to object - against the very spirit of zoning law.

I find it ironic that those responsible for zoning Ellis County did so with the intent of protecting wind developers (and themselves) from liability, confident in their ability to manipulate the conditional use permit in their favor, only to be foiled by the protest petition that zoning law provides to protect the rights of neighbors. With the cell tower CUP, these same zoning board members are testing the waters for yet another way to corrupt due process and zone all their wind towers on tiny postage stamps of land that would, in effect, be 'neighbor-free'. In approving this CUP, two of our County Commissioners have not only revealed their complicity in this corruption, but have thumbed their noses at the very rules they themselves instituted and exposed Ellis County to a costly law suit it cannot possibly win.

Surely these are reasons enough for all citizens of Ellis County to rise up, pack these public meetings, expose this corruption to public embarassment, and invest in the processes necessary to remove these puppets of private interest and replace them with responsible representatives of the people.

Seasonal Cartoons by John Terry, WV

2007-12-07T07:42:00.000-06:00

Wisdom of a Comprehensive Plan

2007-12-01T10:59:00.000-06:00

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves, Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

As I struggled to understand Mr. Lowry admonishing the county to “not get too hung up on a comprehensive plan” (among a few other statements), the words of Lewis Caroll sprung into my mind. As they did it hit me, that similar to the “Jabberwocky”, the only way to make sense of nonsensical lyricism is to accept that it’s not supposed to. I’m not sure there is any other way to interpret a statement that implies that the Ellis County Zoning and Planning board shouldn’t have a plan to guide their zoning decisions.

If you have spent any time in or around any organization, you probably know the difference between vision, goals and objectives. Vision gives you direction, goals give you specificity to achieve the vision and objectives outline specific actions necessary to reach the goal.

Similarly, a comprehensive plan quantifies the vision and outlines specific goals for the community. The zoning regulations give the specific actions needed to reach those goals and thereby achieve that vision. You can engage in all the action you want, but until it is guided by a vision and goals, those actions may or may not serve your best interest.

It may well be true that in Kansas the comprehensive plan has no specific statutory authority. However, it does not then imply that a plan is unnecessary. Many states wisely require a detailed comprehensive plan prior to adopting zoning regulations. In most of the other states (Kansas included) a community takes a higher risk for judicial intervention if they have zoning without a comprehensive plan (Golden v. City of Overland Park).

As Lorraine A. Cortés-Vázquez, the New York secretary of state put it; The comprehensive plan is insurance that the zoning ordinance is reasonable and “bears a reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means used to achieve that end.”

Right now, we don’t have an agreed upon notion of what the “end sought” vision for zoning is in Ellis County, because we don’t have a comprehensive plan. If our vision of zoning is "to protect agriculture" as it has been mentioned numerous times by the Zoning and Planning Board, then we need a comprehensive plan to quantify what that means and set specific goals by which we hope to achieve that end. Then and only then does it make sense to set specific courses of action or zoning rules by which to meet those goals. Without the vision and goals, we cannot hope to have specific enough objectives or rules to accomplish what we want (whatever that is). In other words, one cannot hope to interpret or accomplish the letter of the law, without understanding the spirit of it.

Without a comprehensive plan, the vision for the community is dependent on the individual commissioners along with the zoning and planning board members at any given time. The rules and the application of them are therefore guided more by personal interest, bias and politics of the moment than upon a guiding vision set by the community at large. Imagine if the United States of America were only guided by a series of laws passed by the legislature. Without the guiding vision of a constitution, there is no set vision for our country, no stability over time and no protection from the whims of individual government leaders. Ultimately, we owe our success as a country more to our constitution than to our individual laws.

Community development is a long complicated journey. I for one want a clear sense of where I’m going, why and how I want to go there BEFORE I just start walking. In the end, the investment in this process will pay exponential dividends in time, effort, resources and outcomes. It is only rational to assume that our community would want the same thoughtful process to guide us.

As a result, I’m assuming that Mr. Lowry’s suggestion was not intended to be rational. That being the case, though Carrols “Jabberwocky” is typically regarded as the greatest nonsense poem ever penned in the English language, the editorial in the 11-30-07 edition of the HDN has to be a close second.

Suing to enforce the law

2007-11-29T15:55:00.000-06:00

This is from Paul Faber, resident of Ellis County, Kansas:

Kansas farmers and ranchers are an inventive lot. A number of small- to medium-sized companies in Kansas owe their origin to a farmer who thought of a better way of getting the job done.

But when a little guy invents a better mousetrap, sometimes the big cats in the neighborhood want it. And sometimes they steal the idea.

More than one small company has seen the huge implement manufacturer just walk right over the inventor's patent and start to manufacture the better mousetrap itself.

How do they get away with this? How can the big guys get away with stealing the idea?

Money is how they do it.

Even if the little guy clearly has the law on his side, the only way to enforce laws about patents is through a lawsuit. And it costs lots of money to file a lawsuit and to carry on a lawsuit, which might include deposing witnesses and bringing in expert witnesses from a distance. When the big guy loses, he can appeal and make it even more expensive for the little guy to protect his rights.

Of course, it costs the big guys just as much to fight the lawsuit, but there is a tremendous inequality in what percent of one's income or one's wealth the lawsuit will cost.

For example, suppose that you or I invented something, had the idea stolen by a big company, and then sued the big company. Your lawyer may very well tell you that it may cost about $50,000 to see this lawsuit through. For you or me, that may very well exceed one's annual income. But for a really big company, $50,000 is just a drop in the bucket. In fact, the company may already have the lawyer on the staff. Of course, the company still has to pay that lawyer, but if they are paying her anyway, then defending against a suit does not add anything to the costs they already have.

So even though your cause may be right as rain, it is awfully hard to afford to defend your right. Some people just give up.

Nine families in Victoria are facing that sort of difficulty right now, and they are saying they will not give up. It is not about an invention, though; it is about the Ellis County Commission not following the law. And the only thing these families can do about it is spend their own money to file a suit against the county.

This is what I understand to be happening.

The Hays Daily News reported that in its Nov. 14 meeting, the Ellis County Commission voted to authorize a conditional use permit -- which is something like an exception to the zoning laws -- so that a new cell tower could be built right outside the city limits of Victoria.

The county commission has the authority to issue conditional use permits, but the county commission has to follow the law in its consideration.

There are two things about the commission's decision-making that seem to be clear violations of the law.

First, from what I understand, the zoning ordinances talk about conditional-use permits for parcels of land. Parcels is the key here. Then, in order to try to ensure that a community agrees to a neighbor's use of land, there is a "petition" procedure. If owners of at least 20 percent of the land within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the parcel in question sign this petition, then the county commission must be unanimous in their approval if they are to approve the conditional-use permit at all.

In the Victoria cell tower case, however, the county commission allowed the applicants for the conditional-use permit to set the boundaries of the permit area to be just a very small area around the base of the structure. They did not set the boundaries of the permit area at the boundaries of the parcel of land. (Even the support wires come from outside of the permit area.)

And they did this so that only the owner of the land, the person who stands to gain financially from the conditional-use permit, would be within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the permit area. Thus, the county commission is allowing someone to use a shady way of avoiding the requirements of the law.

So that is the first way that the county commission looks to have acted illegally. Then secondly, the zoning regulations say, "No new commercial telecommunication tower location shall be approved unless the applicant shall show that there is not sufficient or usable space on existing or approved towers in the same service area. Such verification shall be in the form of written correspondence from the owner of such towers or structures of their unavailability." Nex-Tech, I understand, has the rights to the co-op elevator, and Alltel to an existing tower built specifically for cell phone communication.

During the commission's deliberations, one commissioner pointed out the requirements of the law and that the applicants do not have "written correspondence" showing that the existing towers are unavailable. But the county commission, despite the vote of this one commissioner, decided to approve the application anyway.

The law sets a requirement, but the county commissioners ignore it.

So now a group of Victoria citizens is ready to file a lawsuit against the county. But it will cost them money. The lawyer says it will cost $1,500 or so just to file the suit, and then it will probably cost about $4,500 if it is a simple trial, and much more should the county eventually appeal the court's decision.

Now I personally do not know whether having a new cell tower right on the edge of Victoria is necessary or not. But even if it is a good idea, it should not be brought about by a county commission that violates the law.

And it is a shame that the little guys have to spend big bucks to try to get the county commission to obey the law.

Submitted by:
Paul Faber
Hays, Kansas

Zoning must be fair or leadership must change

2007-11-21T04:25:00.000-06:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News Nov. 17 by John Schmeidler)

Until recently, local government in Ellis County has consisted of a group of "insiders" who ran things the way they want. This good ol' boys club has run roughshod over the entire county for years and gotten away with it because people do not get involved in the political process.

Zoning is based on the premise that people who own property have a constitutionally guaranteed right to control of their property. Whenever courts have considered the constitutionality of zoning, which unquestionably constitutes a governmental control of private property (a power of government which did not exist until 1921, or thereabouts) the courts have always concluded that zoning is constitutional because, in assuming control over private property, the government is giving back something of equal value. That something is the government's protection from having their property diminished in any way and is also a right guaranteed by the government.

What this means is that people have a right to their property as it exists at the time of zoning. Agricultural, i.e. farmers and ranchers have a right to always use their property for crops and livestock. But that also means they have no right to use their property for an industrial complex because the same protection extends to the adjoining landowners. They also have a legally defensible expectation that their adjoining neighbors cannot use their property for anything non-agricultural. Although some courts have not honored this concept, it is nevertheless, the only way that zoning can be interpreted as constitutional and not a violation of individuals' rights.

No one in the wind farm project area who purchased their property when it was zoned agricultural should have to accept industrial activity on that land because they are being denied their right to enjoy their property as it existed before zoning took effect. That is the guarantee that zoning must provide to be constitutionally legal.

Unfortunately, zoning as it now exists in Ellis County has been corrupted. It is being used as a tool of interested parties to force people to accept something adverse to their property. A right that, as above, should be protected by our local government and a right that is clearly being abused in the current application process for the cell phone tower next to Victoria.

No matter what political affiliation we subscribe to, we should always remember that all political power rests with the people. It is up to the people of Ellis County to hold local government accountable for the responsible administration of zoning laws or effect changes in leadership as needed.

What exactly were their intentions when they implemented zoning in the first place?

2007-11-19T10:44:00.000-06:00

Written and submitted by Rod and Pat Bittel, longtime residents of Ellis County:

When our kids were small and we would ask them why they liked something, typically they would say, "Because it's fun." We can now say for at least two of the three county commissioners (the two that voted in favor of zoning) zoning isn't fun anymore. If you have been following the stories published recently in the HDN covering the county commission meetings, it seems that zoning has become a millstone around the necks of county commissioners Vernon Berens and Dennis Pfannenstiel.

Maybe we need to ask what made zoning so appealing to these two gentlemen in the first place. Mr. Berens and Mr. Pfannenstiel intentionally pushed to establish county-wide zoning. What was their purpose for doing this? According to Article 1-102 in our zoning regulations, the first purpose of zoning is to promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County, Kansas. Was that their intention when they voted to pass zoning?

Now the tide has turned. In the county commission meeting of November 15, 2007, Mr. Pfannenstiel said, "If we get rid of county-wide zoning and this thing moves forward (the cell tower) we'd have no problems, I'm very much in favor of just abolishing it, getting rid of it, letting them do what they want."

Mr. Berens said, "We're getting to the point where we are going to abandon county wide zoning and that's very, very, close." Why was an idea that was so good two years ago to become the scourge of the county commission chambers? What took the bloom off of zoning for the commissioners?

Perhaps one possible answer is that now there are regulations that need to be followed. A regulation is an authorized set of rules. The county commission established by law the regulations when they passed zoning. These same commissioners are now disregarding the regulations that they established. Here�s an example. In the case of the proposed cell tower near Victoria, it states clearly in Article 27.7, 32 c., of our zoning regulations that "No new commercial telecommunication tower location shall be approved unless the applicant shall show that there is not sufficient or usable space on existing or approved towers in the same service area. Such verification shall be in the form of written correspondence from the owner of such towers or structures of their unavailability."

Our third county commissioner, Perry Henman, read this regulation out loud to the other commissioners and then pointed out that there were no such letters from Nex-Tech or All-Tel, both of which have potentially available space.

How was the news of this received? Mr. Pfannenstiel moved to approve the project, "I'll make the motion because I think everything's in line." He continued, "I think it's a good thing. We need cell communication towers."

Even if it means breaking the law?

While Mr. Pfannenstiel and Mr. Berens are singing the county-wide zoning blues, Mr. Henman has a solution to their woes. The solution is to establish a comprehensive plan for Ellis County. The solution is to take our current zoning seriously to guide future development. But Mr. Pfannenstiel will have no such thing in his county stating, "A comprehensive plan would say we do nothing in Ellis County."

When we first started paying attention to the actions of the Ellis County Commission, we found some of their reasoning to be like that of a grandpa, inattentive but who meaning no harm. "Now Dad, you forgot to use your blinker. Be careful!" Now their actions seem to be entering into the intentionally harmful stage. "Dad, you are heading straight down a ravine. Stop!!"

We've stopped having fun.

Submitted by:
Rod & Pat Bittel
1101 Noose Road
Hays, Kansas

Why not Nuclear Waste Storage in Ellis County?

2007-11-17T15:05:00.000-06:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News, Nov. 17)

In last Mondays' Commission meeting, Commissioner Perry Henman pointed out many serious problems associated with the application for a conditional use permit for a cell phone tower in Victoria: The irregularity of seeking to permit "a parcel within a parcel" instead of the entire property, the potential for violation of zoning rules regarding proximity of towers to property lines, the public safety risk of a tower collapse across Hwy 40, and the lack of evidence, required by law, that existing towers cannot be used.

However, none of these issues were a problem for Commissioner Pfannenstiel who judged that "everything is in line". His position? If all projects are opposed, Ellis County will not progress. The question is - progress how? With Berens and Pfannenstiel in charge, we might expect even a nuclear waste storage facility would be welcome in Ellis County - provided it yielded a good profit for the right people it could well fall under their current definition of progress.

Perhaps Mr. Pfannenstiel should consider the possibility that truly beneficial projects are typically welcomed in a community without creating social divisions and family feuds. Perhaps it is only those projects with significant negative impacts, and those implemented through unscrupulous tactics, that are likely to be opposed vociferously by local residents. Have you forgotten them Mr. Pfannenstiel? These are the people who will have to live with your "progress."

Commissioners Berens and Pfannenstiel seem unwilling to challenge any zoning recommendations, no matter how flawed. They would rather hide behind bad recommendations and use them as justifications for arbitrary decisions they wish to make that are not in the public's best interest. No wonder they oppose a comprehensive zoning plan for the county - they have discovered the conditional use permit to be a convenient mechanism than can be bent to suit their every whim.

Mr. Berens stated that if we have a zoning board then "we need to have faith in those people." No, Mr. Berens we are under no such obligation, and neither are you. The recommendations of the zoning board should be considered, but there were also dissenting votes. However, these are just a handful of appointed people, many with their own private agendas, whereas you were elected to use YOUR judgment to ensure the best interests of Ellis County are served. That means subjecting those recommendations to rigorous scrutiny - just like Commissioner Henman. If you take recommendation at face value, despite obvious irregularities, you become delinquent in the execution of your duties.

Mr. Pfannenstiel has repeatedly threatened to abolish zoning in order to railroad his favored projects over public resistance. So Mr. Pfannenstiel, you zoned the county for wind energy (against overwhelming public opposition) but now, since zoning isn't working to suit your interests, you want to revoke it in order to deny people the legal protection it provides them - just when they need it most? You seem to want to change the rules of the game every time you don't get your way. Maybe its time for you to just pick up your toys and leave the playground.

ECEAC Addresses Ellis County Commissioners Regarding Zoning Irregularities

2007-11-07T09:36:00.000-06:00

The HDN newspaper article reprinted below describes ECEAC's continuing commitment in advocating for and assisting local citizens in preserving all aspects of the natural rural environment of Ellis County:

Proposed tower still causing concerns

A proposed cell phone tower to be located near Victoria city limits again was discussed at Monday's Ellis County Commission meeting, as several residents addressed commissioners between scheduled agenda items.

Several of the speakers are representatives of the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition, a group formed to "preserve all aspects of the natural rural environment," according to its Web site, ellliscoalition.blogspot.com...

Jacinta Faber was one of the coalition members to address the board, voicing concern about the application process and Ellis County zoning regulations.

"After reading the zoning regs, my belief is the purpose (of zoning) is to live together harmoniously," Faber said. "The basic point is that when a structure or use has a visual, auditory or olfactory impact on others, their welfare and wishes deserve consideration."

Article 32-102 of the Ellis County zoning regulations states written notice of proposed rezoning shall be mailed at least 20 days before the public hearing to all landowners within 1,000 feet of the unincorporated area proposed to be altered. It also states the notice shall extend 200 feet where the notification area extends within the corporate limits of a city.

"Is Victoria being treated as unincorporated area? Does the 1,000-foot limit apply?" Faber asked. "The big issue is what is the area being proposed for this conditional-use permit?"

Article 27-102 also requires the zoning commission to do a "careful study" of the effect of such structures, she said.

"Can we see the study that they've done?" Faber said. "A study is a thing. It is a product. It should be documented."

John Schmeidler, co-chairman of the ECEAC, questioned the project area, which is a 100 foot square along the west side of Paul Schippers' property, he said. Such a small project area eliminates the possibility of a formal protest petition, which owners of 20 percent of the land within 1,000 feet of the affected area must endorse.

The area also does not include the tower's guide wires, Schmeidler said, which will extend about 270 feet from the tower's center.

"These are fundamental errors that we have to do something about," he said. "There are usually support structures ... a physical support structure, and that should be included in the permitted area. In this case, it is not."

The application for a conditional-use permit was filed by Paul Schippers, and the Ellis County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 on Oct. 24 to recommend approval of the application, which began the two-week protest period.

The tower, which would be constructed on behalf of Overland Park-based RCC Atlantic, would be more than 300 feet tall.

Rose Ann Dreiling, who lives near the affected area in Victoria, also approached the commissioners with concerns.

"Why do we want to depreciate other land that is close to Victoria that could be potential growth for our city?" Dreiling said.

"People aren't going to want to build next to a cell tower that's 340 feet."

Dreiling also expressed concern at the required setback distance. According to article 27-104 of the Ellis County zoning regulations, the structure must be located at a minimum distance of half the height of the tower from all property lines.

Commissioner Perry Henman agreed some of these issues might require further consideration when the application comes before the commissioners, and agreed the entire tract of property should be rezoned, rather than a small portion of it.

"If there's a certain spot, then we need the legal description of that spot. And it should include all the pieces of that structure," he said. "And we can look at things like public safety, is that too close to the highway and we can make them move it a little further away from the highway. It might still be the same piece of ground.

"But we can do things like that, and we can send that back to the planning board and tell them, 'Here's our concerns,' and they can think about it again and make their recommendation." (Hays Daily News)

Citizens wishing to contact the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition about their rights or concerns regarding the cell phone tower in Victoria, the industrial wind complex proposed just south and west of Hays, or any other related environmental impact or rural zoning issue, may write to us at P.O. Box 464, Hays, KS 67601, or directly contact these individuals:

Tim Davis, Co-Chair of ECEAC, todavis{at}fhsu.edu, 785-623-3590
John Schmeidler, ECEAC Co-Chair, jschmeidler{at}ruraltel.net, 785-259-4314
Jacinta Faber, Media Liaison, 785-628-8817

Additionally, any Ellis Co. citizens concerned about this tower proposed in Victoria, Kansas, should make their opinions known by attending Ellis County Commission meetings (Commission Room at the Courthouse, 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas), held every Monday, and the Ellis County Planning & Zoning Meetings, held every month. Concerned citizens should also write letters to their county commissioners directly by mailing to 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas. The three current commissioners for Ellis County are:

Perry S Henman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 1st District (City of Ellis, western Hays & western Ellis Co.)
Dennis J Pfannenstiel, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 2nd District (central Hays & central Ellis Co.)
Vernon L Berens, Chairman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 3rd District (Victoria, eastern Hays, & eastern Ellis Co.): 785-735-9364, 785-735-2883

More Zoning Irregularities

2007-11-05T13:41:00.000-06:00

(Submitted to HDN, Nov. 5)

What is 340 feet tall and makes a mockery of zoning in Victoria? Answer: A proposed cell phone tower with a rigged application. Just like the wind farm, it is not the project itself, as much as the process, that should concern Ellis County citizens.

1. The permitted area.

Scrutiny of the application reveals that the area proposed for conditional use is only 100 ft by 100 ft - instead of the complete parcel of land. Why? To render a protest petition impossible and deny neighbors their legal right to object. Even the guy wires supporting the tower will extend beyond 100 feet. Some board members we spoke with were unaware they had voted to permit a tiny 'parcel within a parcel', assuming it was the entire property. If this is allowable, then anyone can zone a tiny subsection of their property for any purpose and bordering properties can be denied the legal recourse they are guaranteed by zoning law.

In responding to opponents' requests that the tower be moved closer to an existing waste lagoon, Mr. Wing noted that if the zoned area were changed, this would require a new application. Yet, the zoning board subsequently moved the tower 300 feet within the property, changing the zoned parcel. Why then was a new application not required?

2. Tower regulations.

Our zoning regulations state that any tower must remain at least half its height in distance from any property line. This is irregular because the standard is 1.5 times the tower height to provide safety for neighbors in case of a collapse. Nevertheless, even this regulation would seem to rule out a permit for a 340 ft. tower on a 100 ft square, as this could allow the placement of towers less than 1/3 their height from property lines. As proposed, the tower could collapse right across Hwy 40.

3. Description of the protest area.

The protest area outlined on the application map is a square 2,100 ft on each side. However, this square has been swiveled about 40 degrees counter clockwise from compass coordinates, the proper legal orientation. Why? Once again, the intent is to 'stack the deck' against any opposition and deny yet another group of opponents their right to be included in the protest area.

4. The Conditional Use Permit.

The CUP is a mechanism intended to provide a special exemption for a structure or activity that would not normally be a permissible land use in a zoned area. But without a comprehensive zoning plan, we have nothing guiding specific land uses anywhere in Ellis County, so the CUP can be abused by powerful landholders to put anything anywhere they want - provided they have a fix in with the zoning board. This abuse of the CUP contradicts the fundamental intent of zoning, which is to provide people with a reasonable expectation of future land uses in specific localities - before they buy their properties.

If this application is approved by our County Commission, it will create a very dangerous precedent, that of allowing CUPs for small plots of land drawn up at the whim of the applicant as to deny dissenting neighbors their legal right to protest. To issue a CUP for a small plot within a legal parcel flaunts the intent of zoning law because it allows any applicant to become, in effect, their own neighbor and circumvent the obligations they have to their real neighbors. What would prevent the same policy being applied to wind turbines? The county might well have to use tax dollars to defend such a decision in district court.

It is disturbingly evident that those leading our zoning board are not conducting zoning in the service of their community, but rather in the service of special interests. The people of Ellis County should stand up to Gene Bittel and Lance Russell and cry foul. It won’t be the first time either.

Citizens wishing to contact the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition about their rights or concerns regarding the cell phone tower in Victoria, the industrial wind complex proposed just south and west of Hays, or any other related environmental impact or rural zoning issue, may write to us at P.O. Box 464, Hays, KS 67601, or directly contact these individuals:
Tim Davis, Co-Chair of ECEAC, todavis{at}fhsu.edu, 785-623-3590
John Schmeidler, ECEAC Co-Chair, jschmeidler{at}ruraltel.net, 785-259-4314
Jacinta Faber, Media Liaison, 785-628-8817
Additionally, any Ellis Co. citizens concerned about this tower proposed in Victoria, Kansas, should make their opinions known by attending Ellis County Commission meetings (Commission Room at the Courthouse, 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas), held every Monday, and the Ellis County Planning & Zoning Meetings, held every month. Concerned citizens should also write letters to their county commissioners directly by mailing to 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas. The three current commissioners for Ellis County are:

Perry S Henman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 1st District (City of Ellis, western Hays & western Ellis Co.)
Dennis J Pfannenstiel, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 2nd District (central Hays & central Ellis Co.)
Vernon L Berens, Chairman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 3rd District (Victoria, eastern Hays, & eastern Ellis Co.): 785-735-9364, 785-735-2883

Open Letter to Governor Kathleen Sebelius

2007-10-28T20:30:00.000-05:00

(The following letter was submitted in October 2007 to the Governor of Kansas by J.P. Michaud, resident of Ellis County)

Dear Governor Sebelius,

I was encouraged to read yesterday in our local paper, the Hays Daily News, that your obligation to protecting the health and welfare of the people of Kansas was first and foremost in your mind in supporting the decision to deny the permits for Sunflower Electric's new coal plants.

However, I must ask why that same concern does not appear to extend to the more than 100 families in Ellis County whose, health, homes and livelihoods have been threatened by efforts to site a massive wind energy development inappropriately close to residential settlements.

You pointed out that only 15% of the energy generated by the proposed coal plants would be used by Kansas, while 85% would be sold out of state, while Kansas would bear 100% of the local environmental impact. The same is true for Iberdrola's (CPV Wind Hays) development in Ellis County. Local residents would see their local environment devastated, lose millions of dollars of real estate value, have their health threatened, their quality of life diminished and the scenic beauty of their community destroyed forever, only to have the bulk of the power and the profits exported.

I am not going to argue that wind energy is a huge corporate boondoggle for taxpayers, that it is the most expensive and inefficient form of electricity generation, that it cannot replace any conventional generation because of the fickle nature of wind, that it is only feasible because of massive tax incentives provided to foreign corporations, that wind turbines rarely operate long enough to recover the carbon footprint of their installation, etc, etc.

However, I am going to argue that wind energy has an undeniably large environmental footprint that demands appropriate sites be selected for wind turbines.

The state should not turn a blind eye when large scale energy generation of any kind is proposed in the wrong place as local governments have neither the resources nor the expertise to regulate developments of this magnitude.

The proposed site for Iberdrola's project was selected on the basis its proximity to power lines and the covert scheming of a handful of (mostly non-resident) landholders. There was no independent environmental impact study, no economic impact study, and no consideration given to the rights of neighboring landholders. Both our local zoning board and our county commission are rank with corruption and conflicts of interest that should be sufficient to convene a grand jury investigation.

They completely ignoring the interests of the community at large in the hopes of profiting their own families. Our recently adopted zoning regulations (imposed specifically to facilitate wind energy development) are so inadequate that they contain only 1.5 pages that supposedly 'regulate' wind energy development – compared to 26 pages on signs! Add to this the fact that we have absolutely no comprehensive plan for zoning as recommended by state guidelines and it is not surprising that David Yearout, a member of your own energy council, saw fit to remove himself from the process, so much of his template was deleted from our regulations.

I understand and applaud your commitment to renewable energy. However 'renewable' does not mean 'without impact' – either socially, economically or environmentally. All forms of energy generation have impacts and must be carefully sited so as to minimize these impacts on our population – not simply to maximize the profits of greedy developers.

On behalf of myself and the more than 750 signatories of the Ellis County Wind Farm Moratorium Petition, I request that you weigh in on this issue and defend the innocent families of Hays Ellis County who are now facing the imminent threat of a new application from Iberdrola, carefully gerrymandered to exclude a perfectly valid protest petition that defeated their initial application.

Please tell Iberdrola that, while we support wind energy, we value the health and welfare of our people even more. The wind blows just as hard across the 20 sections of vacant land in southeast Ellis County where almost nobody lives.

Respectfully,

J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Wind energy will raise power bills

2007-10-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News, Oct. 25)

I agree with Craig Volland (HDN Oct. 23) that power bills will be going up. However, I disagree when he says that "rates will increase less if we utilize our state's world class wind resources". In fact, nothing is going to raise our electricity rates faster than the installation of wind power. It is the most inefficient and overpriced form of power currently being flogged to consumers by 'green-posing' politicians and profit-hungry wind developers.

The real cost of wind power is staggering when you add it all up. Estimates indicate that it is 2.5-4.0 times more expensive than energy from conventional sources. But wind turbines must be sited where wind is suitable, rather than where power is needed, and 6% of that power is lost for every 100 miles it must travel to the end user. Distribution costs are also higher for wind power because more extensive power lines are required to connect it to the grid. Furthermore, the constantly fluctuating energy yield from wind is more expensive to integrate, raising the cost of grid management.

Higher costs might be socially acceptable if wind could actually replace coal-fired generation, but it can't. Wind power is unpredictable and will always require backup from a reliable, on-demand, source. The greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program referred to by Volland will provide wind power with yet another undeserved advantage over other forms of generation simply because there is no CO2 produced during its operation – this despite the hundreds of tons of CO2 released during the fabrication, transport and installation of each turbine.

Beyond the direct costs of wind power, we must also factor in the socio-economic and ecological costs. Foremost among these is the loss of property values, which reliable estimates suggest is about 30%, on average, for those unfortunate enough to become wind farm neighbors. Then there are many more costs that are difficult to quantify – the environmental and ecological impacts on vast tracts of land.

What price can we place on thousands of bats and soaring birds of prey destined to be sliced and diced by wind turbines? What monetary value can be assessed for lost quality of life, destruction of rural tranquility, noise pollution, and the unique human health risks associated with wind energy? These costs are all real and must be given due consideration whenever wind energy is compared to less environmentally intrusive forms of generation.

Due to deceptive government legislation, the high costs of wind power are being temporarily concealed from consumers in order to encourage its public acceptance. But don’t be fooled; power bills will rise dramatically in the next few years as government subsidies expire and utilities seek to recover the high maintenance costs associated with wind turbines. Almost half the capital cost of each turbine is the gearbox and current data from Germany indicate that these have a half life of less than five years. Within five years, wind developers will have run for cover with their 'windfall' profits and consumers will be left holding the bag – an industrial wasteland of decrepit monstrosities.

It would forever change who we are & how we would be viewed by others

2007-10-24T18:42:00.000-05:00

Rod Bittel, life long resident of Ellis County, has written this letter:

The wind turbine complex controversy continues to divide our county. This conflict isn't about foreign oil or saving the planet -- it's about location and the proposed location is not suitable. This project covers 2.5 times the area of the city of Hays with 140 turbines that are 400 feet tall (approximately the size of the two cell phone towers you see south of Golf Course Road). The only thing suitable about this location is the financial gain for a few landowners, many who don't live in the area or even in this county. If you put the 100-plus families that live in the area of the proposed project first in the equation it is probably one of the worst locations in the county.

For those of us who call this area home, there are real worries about the documented health effects that may occur if such an industrial complex is built so close to our homes. There are concerns about safety during the building phase as well as from the turbines themselves after construction. There are fears about property and market values decreasing on the biggest investment that most of us have. Some claim that there is no proof to any of these concerns. We can provide ample documentation to show that the county is taking a huge risk if this project proceeds. To the doubters, we say we don't want to be the guinea pigs that find out whether the fears and concerns are real or not. It's simple, move the location of the turbines somewhere where there are not homes and eliminate the risks.

The effect on Hays also needs to be considered. Hays is recognized as a regional hub for medicine, education, commerce, retail, culture and the arts, which enhance our quality of life. What will locating an industrial complex with 140, 400 feet turbines so close to the largest growing city in northwest Kansas do? Will it hurt recruitment of professionals to the area? Will it send a negative message to businesses that are considering Hays? Some of our larger employers have made it clear that they think so. Will it hurt the historical nature of our area or stop future residential growth west of Hays? Will life long citizens of Ellis County move out because their homes and families are negatively impacted? Are these risks that we want to take?

We have stood our ground that this location is both bad and risky for those who live in the area and for the city of Hays. But by standing up for what we believe in, we have been called radicals, wackos, selfish, anti-environmentalists, terrorists, unpatriotic and, yes, even crazy Canadians. We would like to remind those name-callers who we are. We are teachers, nurses, farmers, geologists, ranchers, store and business owners, dental hygienists, therapists, office workers, psychologists, construction workers, your family members, home builders, mechanics, cooks, college professors, grade school, middle school, high school and college students, volunteer coaches, Girl Scout leaders, Sunday School teachers, occupational therapists, highway patrolman and social workers who work in your churches, social service agencies, stores, schools, hospitals, utility companies, governmental agencies, and take care of your children, your parents, the elderly, the sick and the disadvantaged in our county. We are woven into the fabric of what is Ellis County.

We should have never let a foreign owned company come between us and attempt to compromise our quality of life. Putting an industrial wind turbine complex with 140 turbines, 400 feet tall located just west of Hays would forever change who we are and how we would be seen.

Submitted by:
Rod Bittel
1101 Noose Road
Hays, Kansas

Zoning is ‘give and take’

2007-10-13T11:19:00.000-05:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News, October 13)

I want to commend Jo Kraus for some valid points she made in her recent letter, “Zoning issue could split county further”. I presume she means ‘further than the wind farm debacle already has’. I think she is quite correct that the majority of rural residents in Ellis County were against zoning because of concerns about their private interests and the potential loss of individual freedoms on their own lands.

The majority of land in Ellis County is zoned agricultural and Jo is also right that those who move out to live in such areas must accept agricultural activities. I must accept being showered with dust because one of my neighbors refuses to farm no-till and insists on tilling his land incessantly. I must accept herbicide drift onto my property when the wheat gets sprayed, and I must accept the bad smell of an oil well when the wind blows the wrong way. But these were all factors I was able to balance in my decision to buy my property, not something imposed on me after the fact.

However, rural residents are not obliged to accept living in the middle of an industrial park on agriculturally zoned land, just because someone wants to call it a wind ‘farm’. When they happened to be cash-poor, many land-wealthy farmers sold small tracts of land very profitably to townspeople on the promise of a quiet country lifestyle. Now some of these same farmers want to industrialize the surrounding landscape for their personal gain, effectively destroying the value of what they have already sold. Who can have sympathy for them?

Like it or not, we now have zoning in Ellis County, albeit without majority support, and without any form of comprehensive plan to guide it. But zoning does provide people with something in return for surrendering those formerly limitless freedoms – a measure of protection from their neighbors. As one of the architects of zoning, we should thank Jo for leaving us recourse to a formal protest petition, the one legal mechanism that can prevent people from profiting at the expense of their neighbors.

However, it is widely predicted that a new application by Krista Gordon and company will judiciously alter the wind project boundaries so as to exclude the protest petition and subject a large number of property owners to a noxious development they have already overwhelmingly rejected using a valid legal tool. After all, they know who we are, they know where we live, and they need only pull back 1001 feet from our property lines to be technically within the letter of the law.

The letter of the law perhaps, but certainly not the spirit of the law. We can only hope that our County Commission will honor the spirit of zoning law and the legal result of the protest petition when (not if) Iberdrola returns asking for a waiver of the one year waiting period to submit their new application. Based on the previous performance of Berens and Pfannenstiel, I’m betting they won’t, but I sincerely hope they prove me wrong.

What's going on behind closed doors?

2007-10-09T14:44:00.000-05:00

From Jeanne Riedel, Ellis County resident:

Why are Vernon Berens, Dennis Pfannenstiel and the wind proponents so against having a moratorium?

In Dana Kraus' letter he spoke of how wind moving up a slope increases speed and that the entire site has this slope which is good for building a wind complex. Would waiting a year to study the effects of wind turbines in Ellis County change the slope? I don't think so.

But if that is what the proponents of the wind complex are afraid of, then what good would it be to build one on the proposed site?

If waiting a year is going to change things, then that means this area isn't as good as they are leading people to believe.

Dana Kraus also said that wind resource has been researched for almost four years in this area. So would one more year really make any difference? What is the rush to push this through without a comprehensive plan for the county? What is the rush to possibly put people in danger? Why don't we research the information further in regard to the sound and health issues? Why do Berens, Pfannenstiel and the wind proponents want to sweep this under the rug like it doesn't exist? For the wind turbines not causing any problems, the compensation letter made mention of them and tried to put sugar-coating on our concerns.

Those of us who are against the wind complex have been made to feel like naughty children. We are supposed to sit back and let the proponents do whatever they like for the "good" of the county. I don't think this is in the best interest of the county and that is why I feel there should be a moratorium even though Vernon Berens rejects this idea.

My question is: Why? What is going on behind closed doors with this international corporation who is looking out for its own interests? Iberdrola doesn't care about the people of Ellis County. They only want the money they can make off of this project.

Iberdrola wants to buy our silence with the so-called compensation package. Does anyone else think it's odd that those compensation letters came out on the same day that the commissioners voted on the project? Also, The Hays Daily needs to get its facts straight. We don't have until Dec. 31 to sign the compensation package. We have until Oct. 5, and they need to be signed and postmarked on or before that date. If the project isn't approved by Dec. 31, then the compensation packages are null and void.

What do they have planned, a waiver perhaps?

I just don't understand why Berens, Pfannenstiel and the wind proponents don't want a moratorium. The people of Ellis County need to ask that question also. Could it be that they don't want people to find out that this wind complex isn't about saving the planet and that it really just boils down to dishonesty and greed? Interesting that there is just one letter difference between green and greed.

Submitted by:
Jeanne Riedel
1530 Yocemento Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Why Ellis County needs a comprehensive plan

2007-10-09T09:29:00.000-05:00

From Angie Grant, resident of Ellis County:

The fundamental premise of zoning is that particular land uses are appropriate for certain locations, but not for others. Thus a zoning board designates districts for particular uses: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, etc., based on recognition of the simple fact that such uses are very often incompatible with one another. Commercial development brings traffic, industrial development brings pollution, and neither should be allowed to encroach on residential areas where they would reduce the value of people's homes and diminish their quality of life.

The state of Kansas encourages the development of a comprehensive plan by all counties that adopt zoning. A zoning board without a comprehensive plan is like a train without rails to guide it. It quickly becomes a train wreck because it has no clear objectives and no guidelines to follow.

Zoning regulations are merely tools for advancing the comprehensive plan. They are supposedly written with a comprehensive plan in mind. To write zoning regulations without such a plan is to invite the institution of regulations that serve private interests rather than the public good.

This is precisely what has happened in Ellis County.

The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to provide a carefully deliberated vision of the future for the whole community and guidelines for development of all types, not just wind energy. It is a document that guides appropriate land use patterns for the public good. If any public official, appointed or elected, is opposed to the development of a comprehensive plan, this should raise a huge red flag in the minds of all citizens.

These people must either have something to lose from adopting responsible guidelines for community development or they must be hoping to gain something at the expense of the public good.

Vernon Berens and Dennis Pfannenstiel are not just county commissioners. They are also citizens of our community who must live and walk among us.

I call on everyone who cares about the future of Hays and Ellis County to pursue these two men, either on the phone at home or in person at the supermarket, and please ask each one this question:

"Why do you oppose the development of a comprehensive plan?"

Submitted by:
Angie Grant
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Rural Residents Should Attend County Commission Meetings

2007-10-07T10:09:00.000-05:00

We have all heard reasons why we should vote. For example, if you don’t vote, then you don’t have a right to complain when things in government don't go your way. The same goes for attending local public hearings.

Given that Ellis County now has county-wide zoning, it is increasingly important that rural residents attend both Zoning Board meetings and County Commission meetings. It is the best way to find out about changes in local government that could affect your family's health, property, and quality of life – assuming these things matter to you. It is also the best way to ensure that both elected and appointed officials act responsibly. The best way to keep them honest is to let them know they are being watched and their actions carefully monitored.

Unfortunately, too few of our citizens attend these meetings. I must admit I have been equally remiss in this regard until recently. Apathy and lack of public attention emboldens political corruption. This was quite apparent to me when I attended Monday's meeting of the County Commission.

Despite well-supported arguments by citizens requesting a temporary moratorium on wind energy applications, and a substantial petition from county residents, the motion by Perry Henman for such a moratorium failed to be seconded. The reasons given by Commissioners Berens and Pfannenstiel for not supporting this motion were essentially non-existent. "We don't need a moratorium because we have a zoning board and we have zoning regulations."

Never mind that the regulations are completely inadequate and do nothing to regulate wind energy development or protect the environment and the citizens. Never mind that David Yearout's recommendations were completely ignored, even though he was paid by the county to guide zoning. Never mind that we don’t have a comprehensive plan to guide development of any kind within the county, in line with the expectations of our state government. Never mind that the current zoning board is, by and large, completely unqualified and beset with glaring conflicts of interest. Never mind that they are leaving the county legally vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit.

These things don’t seem to matter to Berens and Pfannenstiel. No, they cast their lot with the 'windy' developers – Krista Gordon and the Kraus family – more than two years ago. Apparently, they have far too much to gain for themselves and their friends to heed any community concerns, no matter how valid. The smell of corruption is rank in Ellis County and these commissioners appear to be counting on local apathy to grant them a license to do as they please. It is time for all rural residents of Ellis county to rise up in indignation, start attending these meetings, and start reminding these officials that they were elected to act in the interest of all citizens, not just their political cronies.

J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.

How much is free?

2007-10-03T21:44:00.000-05:00

From Penny Davis, Ellis County resident:

As I was reflecting on Iberdrola’s offer of “free electricity” to the many landowners living with the effects of but not profiting from the proposed turbines, I was reminded of a saying I once heard, “when it sounds too good to be true, the cost is hidden”. We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, I wonder how much this “free” electricity going to cost my family?

To begin with, I must point out that the offer really isn't for free electricity. Consistent with our experience of Iberdrola’s behavior in this project, there is much more to know than they are publicly disclosing. The offer is actually based on the month’s electricity bill prior to signing the contract. For instance, if we sign in October, we will be paid a set amount per month, based on our bill in September. This, of course, will not work out to “free” electricity. This year has been a particularly cool year and we didn’t run our air conditioning in September at all. Even in more normal years, the months of May through August typically dwarf the bills of September through April. Therefore the actual reimbursement will be far less than our annual electricity cost.

More to the issue at hand, when they finally delivered this offer (months after announcing it and after the commission vote), they had not discussed it with us or other landowners in the area. If they had taken the time to actually work with us, they would have discovered we don’t want their money. As it stands, even a genuine offer of free electricity will cost us more than we can afford to pay.

What we want from Iberdrola is assurance they will stand by their word. We need assurance that the turbines will not harm our children. We want assurance that they will not devastate our finances by making our largest singe investment (our home) less valuable or desirable on the market. We want assurance that we will not be subjected to daily annoyances that have driven others living with turbines out of their homes. We need assurance that they will not destroy the quality of life for which we paid a premium and searched for years to be able to acquire. This assurance, however, is something they refuse to offer. Instead, Iberdrola asks us to do the opposite by signing away all our assurance in order to receive the “free electricity”.

They tell everyone that all of the things we fear, things such as health effects, noise, flicker, property devaluation, etc, are not real concerns. Meanwhile, they ask us to sign a document giving them the right to do these things (and more) to us in exchange for “free electricity”. All we want is a guarantee that what they tell everyone is true. Instead, they make us an offer we can’t possibly afford to take and present it as being neighborly.

If Iberdola is trustworthy, they should simply do what most manufacturers do when selling a quality product, offer a guarantee. If everything they are telling the community about the project and the turbines is true, they can keep their “free electricity”, increase their profits and offer more money to the county. The residents living with the turbines will have assurance they will not be destroyed by the project. Everyone wins.

Of course, if the Commissioners are wise, they will ask Iberdrola for a similar guarantee that this choice of location will not harm the County or the city of Hays . If they do, my bet is that Iberdrola will refuse, as they have refused to assure the people living with their proposed project. Instead, they’ll encourage the county to waive what legal protections they have, all in exchange for “free” money. Then if the project is approved, we’ll all pay the long term cost of what was sold to us as “free”.

Submitted by:
Penny Davis
Hays, KS

Why so worked up, Snookums?

2007-10-03T10:18:00.000-05:00

From Paul Faber, Ellis County resident:

My phone rang. “Hold that thought, Rudy,” I said, “I have to take this call. It’s my wife, and you of all people should understand that.” Chuckle, chuckle.

“Hi, Honey. You sound upset.” Covering the speaker, I said to Rudy, “Rudy, this may take a while. Help yourself to some nuts.”

Back to my better half. “Oh, you were at the county commission meeting. Now calm down and tell me what happened. Keith Pfannenstiel and John Schmeidler spoke. That’s nice. What did they talk about? Ah, the moratorium again. Yes again. They asked for a year’s moratorium to allow time to establish a comprehensive plan and fix the zoning regulations before any big industry comes into Ellis County? I see. Makes sense, so what’s the problem?

“Oh, Commissioner Vernon Berens thinks that our zoning regulations are fine, at least as long as you can recognize that there is no such thing as perfect zoning regulations. Sweetie, you are getting way too upset. Remember what your doctor said. Yes, Dear, I understand that stating the obvious does not excuse one from correcting the problem.

“Wow! Someone from the crowd shouted out that the zoning board was a joke.”

Winking at Rudy, I mouthed, “I know you deal with hecklers all the time.” I switched to the speaker phone so that Rudy could hear how we deal with hecklers in Ellis County.

“Sorry, I didn’t quite catch what you said. What was Mr. Berens comeback?”

“He said that the zoning commission was not a joke,” she said.

“Great comeback. I bet that quieted the crowd,” I said, giving Rudy the thumbs-up sign. “Honey, Rudy is getting all newyorky on us. He thinks that a public servant in an elected position should say something like ‘What reason do you have for calling the commission a joke?’ Or ‘Can you give me an example of what you mean?’ or something like that.”

“Well, even though no one asked, the audience guy gave him his reasons,” said the sweet voice on the speaker phone. “He said that one board member threatened to resign if the commissioners voted down the conditional-use permit for the wind project and then the next thing you know he’s the chairman of the zoning commission. In the same meeting, another board member pushed hard for his own step-dad to receive a conditional-use permit for a gravel pit and succeeded. You’d think that a conflict of interest is a vice, but instead they made him the vicechair.”

Now Rudy is giving me the thumbs up!

“Yes, Pumpkin, that most certainly does sound like a conflict of interest. Did you take your pill yet?”

“Keith talked about appointing an independent committee,” she continued, “so they could write the comprehensive plan for our county - a committee with no ulterior motives, which is not like in the case of the wind project, where zoning commissioners had family ties to leaseholders who would stand to profit big time from the wind project. Keith also pointed out how David Yearout, a hired zoning consultant for Ellis County, was paid $16,000 to help the zoning commission, which was appointed by Mr. Berens and Commissioner Vernon Pfannenstiel, to write the regulations. But when Mr. Yearout recommended that they start with a comprehensive plan and use the plan as the foundation for writing the regulations the way normal folk do, the commission declined to take his advice. “

“Hey, Bunny Love, it’s a free country, don’t make yourself sick over it. Sugar, I need to get back to Rudy.”

I noticed that Rudy had begun to fidget with my Enron paperweight embossed with the words, “Glory Days.”

“Is there anything else?” I asked.

“Well, the commissioner Mr. Pfannenstiel, in response to commissioner Mr. Henman’s request for a moratorium, moved that the commissioners abolish county-wide zoning. He said that without the county-wide zoning we wouldn’t have this issue.”

“That’s leadership,” Rudy said to me.

“Does Mr. Pfannenstiel remember,” love-ums continued, “way back in the first zoning commission meeting for public comment on the wind project, the first words spoken by Krista Jo Gordon, the project manager, were ‘We do not go into counties which are not zoned.’ So what does Mr. Pfannenstiel mean? Does he mean that today we would have a wind industry next to our home or that we wouldn’t have it? Oh, who knows? All I know is that we need a comprehensive plan and soon!”

“OK! OK!” I interrupted. “Now remind me — what is a comprehensive plan?” I attempted unsuccessfully to stifle a yawn. “OK. So without a comprehensive plan, the county can put turbines, swine or even a dirty sock factory on my beloved golf course.

“Wait a second, are you saying that we don’t have a plan at all? What do you mean ‘chill’?”

Submitted by:
Paul Faber
Hays, Kansas

Over 700 Ellis County Residents Have Asked Ellis County Commissioners for a Moratorium

2007-10-01T12:54:00.000-05:00

(The following appeal for a moratorium was presented in person at the Ellis County Commissioners meeting by Keith Pfannenstiel, Ellis County resident, October 1, 2007)

I have asked to be put on the agenda today requesting a hold on any new applications for wind development. Also to call for a moratorium with an impartial committee, to propose a comprehensive plan and rewrite proper zoning regulations, to ensure Hays and Ellis county at large will not be financially hurt. This independent committee is the way zoning should have been implemented in the first place. Not by appointed people who also want to serve on the zoning board and insure their own financial gain.

There are plenty of well educated people in Ellis county who are not close friends or business partners of the commissioners. Not county employees looking for recognition or possibly a salary increase, not family members or landowners with lease agreements who stand to profit directly from turbine placement. This also would exclude any person who has publicly or privately contacted any wind developer for interest in future personal gain or their land.

Commissioners, our zoning board members don't even know what their roles are.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Ellis county said they hired zoning consultant, David Yearout, for approximately $16,000 to guide a committee appointed by you, in devising a zoning plan for consideration of adoption to protect this county. Two of you implemented this zoning against over whelming disapproval.

According to Mr. Yearout, Ellis county refused to take his advice of starting with a comprehensive plan and proper wind and zoning regulations. I believe he offered wind regulations of nearly 30 pages. I don't want to hear that zoning is a "work in progress". That only works if you start with adequate regulations. Anything less is an excuse and dreadfully dangerous.

Commissioners, I find it very hard to believe that a professional zoning consultant, who truthfully specializes in zoning for wind development, and knowing Ellis county was per suing wind energy, would risk not advising this county to require one single study. Especially knowing that an approval letter for wind energy had been sent out. My guess, is that any place else would have had a grand jury investigation.

So, unless you have conflicting interests, this moratorium is needed for more than one reason.

It is time you commissioners admit that zoning is far from where it should be and that it needs to be revised completely.

Proof of this mess showed up last Wednesday night again at the zoning meeting. A large number of good people and families in Victoria are being divided because of an inadequate zoning system that was manipulated and sacrificed from the beginning.

Today, I am personally asking there be a motion made for a moratorium. I don't need to hear "you will think about it". If a motion is made, at least the public knows which commissioners want to do this right.

They will also know which commissioners want to push it off so they can waive the one year waiting period and accept another wind application. This only pulls back the boundaries to try and eliminate the protest petition forcing it into Ellis county without any studies or guarantees.

There are over 700 signatures requesting a moratorium.

It's time to do it right!

Presented in person by:
Keith Pfannenstiel
Resident of Ellis County, Kansas

No one wants to live right next to turbines, especially not in town

2007-09-23T16:12:00.000-05:00

Submitted by Betty Dinges, resident of Ellis County:

Last week, I was visiting with some friends who live in town, and they let me know they are "tired of hearing and reading about the wind farm." I guess I have been a bit obsessed about it since I live west of Hays.

But I wonder if the town people would give it some thought if they found out some foreign company had offered the city commissioners a chunk of dough to put these turbines in town. Maybe one on each school playground; a few on the beautiful lawns in front of Hays Medical Center; some on the soccer fields, and surely, Seven Hills Park could handle three or four. No matter the change of scenery, the noise and the health problems they might cause.

Oh yes, and for the person on Lawrence Drive who so looks forward to listening to the "soft woosh" and watching the blades turn in the wind: They must put one closer to her house. If she thinks the sound she would hear clear over there would be a "soft woosh," she surely wouldn't mind hearing the sounds we would be hearing so much closer.

Of course, this can never happen, and the people who live in town won't be affected by the wind farm west of Hays -- or will they?

From:
Betty Dinges
1113 Stonecrest
Hays, Kansas

Where is our moratorium?

2007-09-20T15:11:00.000-05:00

Submitted to Hays Daily News, Sept. 20, by J.P. Michaud.

Opponents of the proposed wind energy project west of Hays went to great effort and expense to collect more than 700 signatures petitioning for a moratorium on wind energy development until adequate assessments of environmental, economic, and medical impacts can be conducted by suitably qualified, independent experts – as opposed to blindly accepting the propaganda of those with vested financial interests in the project.

Surely no one can argue that this is an unreasonable request. So what could possibly give county commissioners pause in proceeding in this direction? After all, fewer than 400 signatures of registered voters are required to recall a county commissioner, or to petition a grand jury to investigate political corruption and conflicts of interest on the part of appointed or elected public officials.

A moratorium is not saying 'NO' to wind energy. It is simply a temporary stay of proceedings to permit the gathering of information by qualified individuals, the development of adequate regulations to protect the community, and a sober, unbiased assessment of all the consequences.

The alternative is a hasty and ill-advised rush forward without adequate information or sufficient analysis of consequences. Were our County Commission to consider entertaining an early reapplication by Iberdrola, gerrymandered to circumvent a perfectly valid protest petition, it would be cause for serious concern about the depth and breadth of political corruption in Ellis county, not to mention setting the stage for a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

It cannot be denied by anyone that the current zoning regulations are little more than a blank check for Iberdrola to do as they please on 10,000 acres. They consist of language designed to facilitate, rather than regulate wind energy and they were installed by Lance Russell and Jo Kraus specifically to benefit their family – not Ellis County. These regulations are so pathetically inadequate that even David Yearout, the state counsel sent to advise Ellis County on such matters, and incidentally a member of the governor's task force promoting wind energy, found it necessary to remove himself from any association with them.

So I ask again, where is our moratorium?

Wind Industrialization Located Too Close to Hays Would Harm the Economic Growth of Hays

2007-09-15T11:10:00.001-05:00

Letter from Jody Pfannenstiel, resident of Ellis County, Kansas

Recent claims have been stated in the The Hays Daily News claiming the majority of Ellis County support the current industrial wind development. On what basis are these claims made? Has this entire debate really just come down to "because I said so"?

Unfortunately, there has been a tremendous amount of confusion and misguided information circulating about the project in the effort to secure public support. Virtually no attention has been paid to full disclosure or fact-finding.

Iberdrola has put out a lot of misleading information to secure their project.

They, of course, have massive profit at stake. Yet the citizens of Ellis County have been left to make up their minds based on this information alone without any independent study. Reminds me of the old advertising poster that read; "Four out of five doctors smoke Camels!"

In order to make an informed decision, interested citizens require at bare minimum the following: a comprehensive land use plan and independent projections of the economic growth of Hays. I am at a complete loss as to how we can make this decision responsibly without any real study of question.

As we look back over the last 35 years of Ellis County history, we can project huge problems ahead if we allow this development this close to our city.

Imagine, what if 35 years ago turbines were placed north of the interstate? This area was roughly the same distance from town then as the proposed project is today. Has this been allowed, we could forget Wal-Mart, Home Depot and everything else in one of the most economically important areas of our city today.

We don't have to stop there however, look east down 27th Street, 35 years ago, you would not have found the Sternberg Museum, Edward Jones, the nursing homes, dental offices and beautiful homes that now occupy that area. More economic growth vaporized by turbines.

Thirty-five years ago, these pasture areas were vacant and available. Had we filled them with something as short-sighted as a wind development, we would have lost millions in additional growth potential. If we could go back in time and purpose wind turbines in those areas knowing what they contribute today, how many people would actually vote for them?

Similarly, if we allow this project this close to town, what development we will never envision or realize in place of a project that could easily have been sited elsewhere? At the very least, this area of 20,000 acres of prime development land deserves and demands independent study to ensure that the $600,000 per year will not cost us millions annually in lost potential.

Why hasn't this been done? That question should deeply concern the citizens of Ellis County. Based on my research, I think we will find a much different picture than the one being sold to us. I have yet to find a single community that can verify an economic boom as promised to them by the likes of Iberdrola.

Now, since imaginary figures have played such a crucial role in this debate, allow me a few of my own projections, based on the people I drink coffee with:

One hundred percent of the people of Ellis County believe they should be presented with unbiased facts and figures to decide their vote.

One hundred percent of them want to know what the hidden risks of such a development are before it is approved.

One hundred percent also want to know if there has been any underhanded political dealings to avoid rewarding unethical behavior.

Lastly, 100 percent of people in Ellis County are positive that if this project is approved and things go bad because of the poor choice of location, poor regulation and planning and shady political dealings, no one will step forward to take the blame.

Submitted by:
Jody Pfannenstiel
974 Mount Pleasant
Hays, Kansas

We Commend Perry Henman for Voting No on the Wind Farm Zoning Application

2007-09-15T10:48:00.000-05:00

Perry Henman (County Commissioner) stood up to the financial bullies and did what is best for Ellis County. He was not persuaded by greed, nor did he act only on possible financial gains. He did what he knows is right. He knows our zoning commission didn't do their job in preparing for this kind of industrialization, so he didn't allow our other commissioners to rush us into something our county is not properly prepared for. We need a moratorium established to put in place proper guidelines first before we progress with something of the magnitude of this wind turbine complex. We also need to respect the rights of all property owners and search for a location better suited for our entire community. Perry Henman understands this, and he should be highly commended. (From: Bruce Rupp, Hays, Kansas)

I am not against wind energy in Ellis County, my concern has always been about location, health and safety issues. The wind blows as much in the southwest corner of the county. Thank you Mr. Henman, for voting with a clear mind, not one clouded by dollar signs and after weighing all the concerns and issues. Apparently, the protest petition was not a concern of the other two commissioners. (From: A.J. Pfannenstiel, 840 150th Ave., Hays, Kansas)

I applaud Perry Henman's courage, strength and intestinal fortitude (guts) to stand up for what he believes. How much easier it would have been to cave in to peer pressure?(Terri Rupp, resident of Ellis County, Kansas)

I think Perry Henman was right on with his decision. We need to step back and do this right, the regulations that are currently in place are simply not adequate. And the thought of signing off now and negotiating later is a travesty waiting to happen. There can be wind energy in Ellis County if it's done right. Tammy Deterding, resident of Ellis County, Kansas

It was probably the wisest thing to do at this point. It would be foolish to sign a contract and then negotiate the terms. Patrick Lowry, did you negotiate wages before or after you took the job? Let's get a moratorium on this until we can have more than 1 1/2 pages to protect us. Rewrite the zoning on industrial wind before we proceed. (from Paul Wildeman, Ellis County, Kansas)

Perry Henman is a man of honesty and courage.¬He is looking out for the better welfare of the community as a whole. The other two commissioners were very very wrong to take the bribe offered to them. Why are they so gullible and naive, when it comes to Krista Gordon's lies? For example, she said that the turbines will be worth the same value 20 years from now as scrap material. "The motor can be sold as a motor and the blades as blades." What a joke that is and what a big fat lie. It is so sad that the other two commissioners can not think for themselves and actually listen with healthy skepticism. (from Angie Grant, resident of Ellis County, Kansas)

Please do not blame Perry Henman. Blame the three county commissioners and the zoning committee that forced countywide zoning down our throats with no respect for the voice of the people. These three men and the committee chairman knew that the wind-farm people would not come in unless county wide zoning was put in place. Had they disclosed their agenda at the very beginning many of these issues could have been worked out and the wind-farm issue would have passed. Instead they upset the masses and we grouped together to oust the sitting commissioners. Perry did nothing more than upset a house of cards that was built on a foundation of deceit and hidden agendas. Perry Henman did not just represent a few hundred people who were against the wind farm, he represented thousands of us who were against the way the old commissioners shoved countywide zoning down our throat. Blame the old commissioners and the biased zoning committee for the defeat of the wind farm. Their total disregard for the will of the people led to their defeat and also the defeat of the wind farm, which would have been a good thing for the county. Let us all hope that the new county regulations are built with a true agenda rather than a hidden agenda. (from Jason Dinges, resident of Ellis County, Kansas)

I applaud Perry Henman for having the insight, integrity and intelligence to prevent this county from getting into a train wreck.¬Now let's make a comprehensive plan with proper and adequate zoning regulations to protect everyone in this county. I despise CPV / Iberdrola (the for profit company from Spain) for what they have done to this county and its people. And by the way, if there are so many people in favor of this industrial project. Then why were there never more than 10 to 20 supporters at their support meetings? (from Bob Goodrow, resident of Ellis County, Kansas)

Mr. Henman did nothing but vote what he felt to be right in his heart. That means¬he has one. Even a jury has the right and the duty to acquit if there is reasonable doubt. This project, as well as the zoning process that brought us to this point, has holes the size of craters. We call that reasonable doubt. Mr. Henman did Ellis County a service by slowing down what might well prove to be a disaster for the county. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by¬making decisions on something of this magnitude count, and by¬making sure it's the right thing for the right location. Our hats are off¬to you, Mr. Henman. Thank you for feeling compassion for the opponents living in the project area who've been made to feel their concerns are worthless all along. At least someone was listening. We thank you. (from Jim and Luanne Kramer, residents of Ellis County)

Obvious to the Oblivious

2007-09-11T21:07:00.000-05:00

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." -Leo Tolstoy

For some time now our community has been locked in battle over a proposed wind development on the outskirts of Hays. In full disclosure, I too have been involved in this debate and am decidedly against the location presently under consideration.

One of the most astounding things about the industrial wind debate in Ellis County is the polarization which has occurred. Polarization has been evident since the debate emerged in the public eye several months ago. Since the Commission vote, it seems to have intensified. Meanwhile, Iberdrola completely ignores the invitation to engage in an open community discussion, and the division rages on.

When reading the evidence concerning industrial wind power, it becomes quickly apparent that conclusions are mixed at best. There may be positive aspects of industrial wind generation but these benefits are very often offset by poor planning and placement. It also bears mentioning that the issues surrounding industrial wind projects are complex and difficult to sort out. That however does not excuse us from our responsibility to wrestle with the dissonance.

As such, I have been struggling to make sense of various claims and positions of some of my fellow citizens on both sides of this debate. Recently however, as I read an opinion piece in the HDN, the admonitions of my research dissertation chair began to reverberate loudly in my head, “BEWARE OF SELECTION BIAS”.

Regardless of which side a person is on in this debate, it seems that he or she has all the evidence on their side. If you don’t believe me, just ask them. Of course it is also apparent that their claims are biased. More specifically they reflect a particular type of selection bias known as “confirmation bias”. Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek information that only supports your position while ignoring data that contradicts it. Therefore, you seek only what you want, and find it every time.

Confirmation bias explains a tremendous amount of what has occurred in this debate. It is evident that this “my side” bias accelerates polarization and distortion of logic. As just one of many examples, project proponents claim that a wide majority of perhaps 80% of the county populace supports them. On what basis do they make these claims? It’s simple really, because they associate with people that share their views, look for evidence that supports that view and discount the evidence that doesn’t fit well with their position. To be fair, there is a slim chance that 80% do agree with them, but they don’t know this and they display no intention to find out. It’s like saying “I have made up my mind already, so don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Even the most touted aspects of this proposal are wrought with confirmation bias. The economic impact questions are far from known. Those for the project are convinced it will be positive, while those against it, argue more will be lost than gained. Ask either side and you’ll hear an “irrefutable” answer that just so happens to agree with them.

This bias is so rampant that logic bears no burden in carrying even the most basic questions. It is nearly impossible to effectively argue (when considering all the issues) that the proposed location of this industrial development is the best location available in Ellis County. Other wind projects are almost always placed in isolated or economically declining areas. This project is proposed next to the only growing city in northwest Kansas. This obvious problem does not trouble those committed to this wind development. They skirt the issue entirely, try and confuse the issue by injecting arguments not related to the question and engage in defensive posturing, all in the effort to avoid challenging their pre-existing bias and thereby risk their personal interest.

As the interested parties of one side or the other bicker over who possesses the correct information regarding this proposed wind development, the real travesty continues unabated. While it may be academically interesting to posit who is right, the independent data that would support an unbiased answer to that question has never been collected. Meanwhile, the county commission is busy determining what will actually happen.

Though the vote has been taken and the project declined, Iberdrola vows to push on, in the effort to have this development approved. Many feel this decision is the most important decision Ellis County will face in our lifetimes. With these stakes, we should demand our decision makers base this decision on unbiased information collected by independent scientific study. We must demand a moratorium on this and future applications in order to take the time necessary to candidly study the impacts of developments this large on the city of Hays and the outlying county. This objective information can then be utilized to create a comprehensive land use plan, and reform the various zoning regulations that fail to support this plan. With this new vision and regulation, we can finally rest knowing that the true purpose of zoning, to protect all the citizens of Ellis County, is our authentic goal.

As it stands, two commissioners have signed letters of support fully two years prior to the application and subsequent public discussion. If they continue to deliberate, they do so without the benefit of a single independent study to shed light on even one of the many questions of this development. Without a comprehensive plan, better regulations and impartial information to inform the questions of this project, what will guide their decision? You guessed it, confirmation bias.

Open Letter

2007-09-08T06:42:00.000-05:00

This is a reposting of an open letter to two of the county commissioners (originally posed September 8). It has been reposted in an attempt to overcome a formatting problem.

Dear Mr. Berens, and Mr.Pfannenstiel,

I am writing to express my disappointment in the both of you. You may be surprised for the reasons why I am disappointed. It was not because you voted in support of the conditional use permit for the wind plant. It was for the poor reasoning behind your decision.

First I want to address Mr. Berens. I called you on many occasions over the last six months and each time with the exception of the last time, which was approximately a week before the vote, you would assure me that you were listening to my concerns and you would consistently respond with “right idea, wrong location.” You made the statement, “these things should not be shoved down people’s throats.” When I suggested that the old Walker Air Base with its hyper-cultivated land be used for an industrial wind plant, you countered with “that is only four miles from Victoria and that is too close.” When I responded with “imagine the turbines being only 2000 feet from your home,” you agreed it was too close.

But the last time I spoke with you, you changed your tone. You repeatedly said that you liked the 2000 foot setback. Do I understand you correctly that you would now agree that turbines could and should be placed 2000 feet from Victoria? A picket fence of towers and turbines 2000 feet out and surrounding your town would make a statement that you are willing to sacrifice for your country. Of course I am being facetious, but I question why you would be willing to sacrifice our health, peace, and property values while your health, peace, and property values will remain unaffected.

Please do not dismiss your unintentional or intentional deception of the many people you spoke with as politics as usual. I believe this is about personal character. If you intentionally deceived the people you serve, that would be a blot on your character for the obvious reasons. If this was unintentional, then one would believe you truly were not listening to our concerns, which is disturbing in its own right. Or maybe when you signed the letter of approval for this project back in 2005, which placed the turbines even closer to homes and without any discussion with those who would be most affected, you saw no reason to look back and our fate was sealed.

Though you may not be listening to me, I am listening to you and am concerned about what I am hearing. You claimed that bargaining with Iberdrola can take place after approving the conditional use permit. What sense does this make? Would you not be playing right into Iberdrola’s hands? I hope this was a misunderstanding on my part.

Finally, you mentioned that you spoke with the Kansas Energy Commission. In the State of The State 2007, Governor Sebelius did mention wind energy goals with wind providing 10% of our electricity by 2010 and 20% by 2020. However, Governor Sebelius spent much more time expressing her concern for the health of Kansans. There is real truth to “right idea, wrong location” unless the goal is to increase vibro-acoustic disease by 10% in 2010 and wind turbine syndrome by 20% by 2020.

Now I would like to address Mr. Pfannenstiel. You have made light of our health concerns despite the fact that the French Academy of Medicine made a strong statement in 2006 recommending that modern wind turbines should be placed no closer than 1.5 kilometers from residences due to the health problems they create. The United Kingdom Noise Association in 2007 concluded that a safe buffer zone of at least 2km should exist between family dwellings and industrial wind turbines of up to 2MW installed capacity, with greater separation for a wind turbine greater than 2MW installed capacity If you review present day regulations for siting industrial wind plants in the United States, plans are becoming increasingly comprehensive and restrictive as more data is becoming available concerning noise and health issues. Today, I just received news that some more of Dr. Nina Pierpont’s research on wind turbine syndrome will be published in 2008 in a professional journal. Even though the research is becoming clearer, there is some uncertainty about the extent of the health effects. Surely it is more reasonable to err on the side of safety. I am afraid your attitude reminds me of a hunter who sees some movement off in the distance and says, “maybe it’s a deer or maybe it’s a human, so I’ll shoot. Hang the consequences.”

Finally, my family and I received an offer of a “Wind Farm Neighbor Agreement” in the mail the day of the commission meeting. I consider this offer a bribe to keep us from telling others about the negative impact 400 foot turbines can have on humans living close to them similar to the agreement and payment for those in Spearville. The prairie chickens were excluded from this offer because, as you know, chickens can’t talk.

As both of you know, Iberdrola cannot re-submit their application for a year, unless you make a special exception for them. There is research to be read and flaws to be corrected, so all of us probably need at least that year. I urge you, therefore, to learn from your mistakes and take the year to do all of the research that we need you to do.

Jacinta Faber

Former commissioner and architect of wind project now threatens law suit.

2007-09-07T00:35:00.000-05:00

As a former county commissioner, Harold Kraus knows very well how to manipulate local government to his own ends. He now seeks to do so behind the scenes, assuming the rest of the community is either too stupid to notice, or too apathetic to care. It is up to every honest citizen of this community to see that he is put in his place.

How do you get a wind power project sited on your land without your neighbors being able to do anything about it? First, stack the zoning board with family members and supportive business associates so you can force zoning down the county's throat against a huge majority in opposition. Then, have these same zoning board members cut and paste together the most inadequate regulations ever seen in the history of zoning so that the county is wide open to wind energy development without any restrictions.

Now you are ready to solicit wind developers that might otherwise be wary of a project so close to residential housing. No problem, you say. With zoning in place, we can pull all the strings to recommend a Conditional Use Permit with only two weeks notice to anyone who might oppose it. The CUP will protect both the developer and the leaseholders from any legal liability arising from their project, no matter how hideous or environmentally destructive it turns out to be. Those who don't like it can effectively sue themselves. Slam dunk. Just like getting your step son and chair of the zoning board to ensure that your permit for a gravel pit is approved - regardless of how much of the required documentation is missing when it comes to a vote.

But Kraus seemingly underestimated the people of his community. He now realizes that they are not going to be intimidated or subservient to his sleazy, underhanded business tactics. Unable to bully his neighbors into submission, he now seeks to bully the County Commission itself and writes a letter threatening to sue the county for taking away his family's rights to do whatever they want with their land. I guess we should be thankful he doesn’t own a coal mine or it wouldn’t be only wind development we are fighting.

The bulk of Mr. Kraus' letter seeks to debunk any health effects of wind towers and place the burden of evidence on potential medical victims (remember Erin Brockovich?), while in truth the real legal burden falls on developers to prove no health hazards will result from their activities. However, the purpose of his letter appears to be a threat to demand compensation from the county for loss of his property rights if he isn’t allowed to have wind towers. Apart from being legally preposterous (you can't demand compensation for not being allowed to do something potentially hazardous to your community) it is hugely ironic. Perhaps if the process had been less devious and had offered some sort of compensation to his neighbors in the first place, the county wouldn’t now be facing law suits regardless of what decision is made on this project.

Commissioners Deny Application

2007-09-04T12:01:00.001-05:00

Press Release: 09-04-07

Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition

The ECEAC is pleased with the outcome of the Ellis County commission vote denying the conditional use permit to place a massive industrial development outside the most populous area of Northwest Kansas.

This industrial project has been marred by an apparent manipulation of the political process and the developer’s failure to work with the entire community from the outset. Unfortunately, our community has been deeply wounded by the division resulting from the poor planning and execution of this proposal.

The ECEAC has been concerned that this development was put into motion years before it came into the public forum. We were saddened by the vote of Commissioners Berens and Pfannenstiel as it appears as though they had been biased in favor of the development before hearing the concerns of the community regarding the location of this project. Their vote today only confirms their position in 2005 when they signed a letter of support in favor of this development without the benefit of any independent studies to determine the truth of the many questions in a development of this magnitude.

Throughout this application process, it has become apparent that the Ellis County zoning regulations are severely lacking in content to protect the community from ill sited developments of this kind. Furthermore, the application process itself needs to be revisited as this development failed to follow the process appropriately. As past behavior is most often the best predictor of future behavior, we are also concerned that the developer will continue their attempts to manipulate the zoning process in the effort to foist this poorly sited development on the community.

We sincerely hope the developers do not attempt to circumvent the due process rights of the individuals in the project area by merely redefining the project boundaries in order to avoid the protest petition, and reapply for a permit of the same location. This project area has been denied and should rightfully be abandoned in favor of one more appropriately sited.

Ellis County must now look forward to fix the problems that came to light in this process. This commission must begin by establishing a comprehensive land use plan to insure appropriate placement of developments. They must also appoint an independent committee to revisit and rewrite zoning regulations appropriate to protect Ellis County. We hope to be included in this process and would offer our support to the commission.

The Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition is a group of concerned citizens dedicated to preserving all aspects of the natural rural environment of Ellis County, Kansas.

Letter to the Ellis County Commissioners

2007-08-31T13:44:00.000-05:00

The following letter was mailed by Benjamin Faber to the Ellis County Commissioners on August 31.

Dear Honorable Commissioners,

In these days leading up to the vote on the Ellis County Wind Farm issue, I can imagine you have been swamped with letters and other attempts to sway your vote a certain way. One of these letters was brought to my attention, which was written by a local farmer who supports the development of a wind farm. As we live in a democratic society, I feel that it is my duty, and I know you also feel the same way, to stay informed on the current issues of our society, in this case, the wind farm. I know that by being elected by your fellow countrymen that you recognize the responsibility to listen to both sides of an argument and make your decision rationally. This letter is only an attempt to offer a rebuttal to the afore mentioned letter with the hopes that it will supply you with enough information to make a wise decision for the community.

One consideration you should take into account when evaluating the information provided to you is the source from which it comes. The previous letter cites various pieces of scientific information of varying complexity and topic. Most of this information lies in the field of acoustics, which is the physics of sound. The author of this letter is a farmer who, to the best of my knowledge, does not a degree in the area of physics. I, on the other hand, am in my third year of study as a physics major in college. I have studied the area of acoustics in depth in my classes and on my own. I appreciate the author’s attempts to convey scientific knowledge to you, but he did not do it accurately.

The rest of this rebuttal will be in the form of point/counterpoint.

Point #1: Increasing the setbacks is a violation of property rights.

The last time I checked the operations of government, the zoning regulations were designed to protect those who are not directly involved with making alterations to environment. This would include proper location of such features as landfills, hazardous industry and infrastructure needs (such as interstate highways, railways, etc.). Setting back a wind power generation complex is no different. It does not violate the rights of the property owner; on the contrary, the zoning regulations protect these property owners and all landowners and residents from my asking that a hazardous industry come operate on my land within 1000 feet of their property and residence.

Point #2: Vibro-Acoustic Disease is a myth.

This could not be further from the truth. In the letter to you, the author cites a study by Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira, a distinguished Portuguese scholar in the area of medicine. Her reports have been published in various medical journals, like the influential journal Noise and Health. The findings reported in the previous letter will presented at the Wind Turbine Noise Conference 2007 in Lyon, France. She has over 25 years of work in the field of the medical effects of noise. Suffice to say, she is a well-respected expert in the area of low-frequency noise and its health effects. The study that the previous paper is drawing on is the study of a deep-water grain handling terminal, which is a terminal where ocean freighters unload their grain. The author of the previous letter confuses the deep-water terminals with those that unload considerably less amounts of grain from small trucks. The deep-water grain terminals handle loads on the order of thousands of tons from every freighter, where as the trucks may unload a ton of grain at a time. The discrepancy in the amount of low-frequency noise generated is phenomenal. In the book The Physics of Sound, Richard E. Berg and David G. Stork, Second Edition, it specifically says that rapidly moving objects, such as trains or cars also produce a significant amount of infrasound. Now an empty train car weighs about 50,000 pounds. The nacelle (power generating unit) of a wind turbine weighs as much as 22 loaded train cars. Now if the proposed wind farm contains about 125 turbines, then take the amount of infrasound by one 110 car train and multiply by 25. That is the amount infrasound generated by the whole field of wind turbines. The author says that the infrasound produced by the turbines would be considerably less than the infrasound produced by the interstate, plane or trains. As seen from the calculations, it would take 50 trains per day to generate the amount of infrasound generated by the proposed wind farm. It is hard to ignore facts like this.

The author also states that no case of VAD has ever been reported. This is completely umtrue. The author cites personal experiences of himself flying in the Navy and those of his colleagues. VAD comes in a variety of different forms, from mild to severe. The more mild symptoms are a general feeling of motion sickness and headaches. On the severe end, VAD has been seen to cause numerous cardiovascular and breathing problems. One condition required to develop VAD is a constant exposure to low-frequency noise. Logging 4000 hours of flight time is a long time, but it is in discrete events. The wind farm will always be there and always be generating power. In the Navy records of the flight crew that is constantly exposed to the infrasound of the plane engines you would find a preponderance of cardiovascular and respiratory maladies. These are consistent with the symptoms of VAD.

The lack of sleep is another common problem. The author gives another personal experience of being sleepy in college during the middle of the day. As a current college student, he has my sympathy. I too am tired during the middle of the day. However, as the author can surely attest, his lack of sleep at night was not due to an unbearable noise source. I, like most students, do not get much sleep due to other obligations, but when I do sleep, I sleep straight through the night. Those who are situated near wind turbines and cannot sleep give the general feeling of insomnia as their primary cause. This insomnia is brought on by the annoying vibrations of the windmills all through the night. I am sure that you yourself would not want to suffer through sleepless nights, so why should other people?

Point #3 We can threaten you with lawsuits to coerce you into approval.

The author makes an attempt to threaten the country with a lawsuit if he does not get his way. I think I have your agreement when I say that that is not a very noble and democratic solution to a problem. He says the medical evidence would not stand up in a court of law. I can assure you that it will. There is no reason to feel like you need to be pushed around and bullied into approving a measure that you are not sure of yet. He seems to be in the business solely for the purpose of personal gain and will not let hindrances such as the rights of others get in his way.

I hope this information I have provided in this rebuttal has helped you come to well-researched rational decision. From the material I provided I hope I have made it clear that all that is needed are proper setbacks from those Ellis County residents who do not wish to be subject to their effects. There is quite a bit of open space in Ellis County that would solve this problem. I urge you to make your decision wisely.

Thank you,

Benjamin J. Faber

Who Would Be Accountable?

2007-08-26T22:54:00.000-05:00

This letter is submitted by Jim and Luanne Kramer, residents of Ellis County, Kansas:

A recent HDN letter said opponents of the wind project are inconsistent because they opposed zoning. The author implied this makes them hypocritical. That is simply not accurate. Those opposing zoning when initially proposed and debated aren't inconsistent in supporting it now. They have no choice. Zoning is here; now people have to deal with it.

As we understand it, land-use freedom before zoning was quite different. A person had freedom to do as they wanted, but also had responsibility.

If use of the land somehow harmed his neighbors, he'd be liable to lawsuit. Before zoning, an outside developer would have responsibility should harm be brought about by an industrial wind project. But, with zoning, responsibility seems lost.

Who is responsible now? It doesn't appear to be the landowner, as long as he's using the land per zoning. Is it CPV/Iberdrola? Apparently not, because at the initial presentation in March, Ms. Gordon said they only consider projects for counties that have zoning in place. Therefore, zoning must cover them also. Is it Ellis County? Isn't that like suing yourself, since your tax dollars fund the county and its programs?

Who, then, takes responsibility? What recourse will affected residents have should harm come to them, their families, or their properties, as a result of this project?

For that matter, should harm come from future zoning applications? Once a facility like this is approved in Ellis County, we can be sure there'll be more wind complex permits coming in shortly. The responsibility question is there, begging for an answer.

Who? If this were merely a zoning question of someone wanting to build a house, or start a business, near another's property, the answer would be simple. But this is entirely different. Iberdrola doesn't know what size of turbines, yet. They could be 400 feet tall or taller still. They don't know the size of footings, yet. They may be 8 feet or 30 feet deep (who cares about the water table)? Total number of turbines isn't decided, yet. There could be anywhere from 100 to 140 (or more, who knows)? Final locations of turbines haven't been decided, yet. Do they even have boundaries finalized, yet? How on earth can they guarantee how far away from residences turbines will be until they decide?

How can Ellis County even consider a project of this magnitude without knowing these very important details?

Don't our zoning regulations require all of this in writing before a proposal is even considered?

In June, the acting chairperson quoted that the zoning regulations serve a number of purposes, the first of which is "To promote the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County, Kansas."

All residents, whether they live within the project location, in Hays, or for that matter, anywhere in Ellis County, have every right to expect this statement is true, and followed to the letter.

All residents have the right to expect zoning to protect us and we should accept nothing less.

We truly want to believe zoning was adopted for that reason; not as a ploy to open the door for an already in-progress wind project, but it's getting more and more difficult to believe.

County residents have an obligation to object to and oppose this or future proposals they feel do not meet fundamental zoning rules and requirements.

We feel this conditional use permit to site an industrial wind facility in the proposed area should be denied. It does not meet the first requirement of our zoning commission's stated purpose.

Jim and Luanne Kramer
120 W. 37th St.
Hays, Kansas

Forcing Turbines on Landowners is Wrong

2007-08-24T13:36:00.002-05:00

The following letter is submitted by Mary Barnes, a longtime Ellis County resident:

I have been reading The Hays Daily News Reader Forum and news articles regarding the conditional-use permit for an industrial wind plant submitted by CPV with great interest. You see, I live in the area slated for the conditional-use permit.

The comments regarding our need to lessen our dependency for fossil fuel are all true. But, what we absolutely need to recognize are the problems associated with the location of the proposed wind farm. After all, this is what the conditional-use permit is all about.

It is not whether we all agree on whether renewable energy is a good or bad thing, or whether or not any particular landowner will benefit financially. It doesn't matter how tall or short the towers will be, and it really doesn't matter what he said or she said or didn't say.

The one and only question that should be asked is if an industrial wind turbine project is properly suited to the area in which it is being proposed, especially when so many of the adjacent home and landowners are opposed to the towers being placed in such close proximity to their homes.

When zoning was adopted by Ellis County, the promise of zoning was that the people of Ellis County would be protected from intrusive and unacceptable uses of the property that surrounds their property.

Vernon Berens, Dennis Pfannenstiel and Perry Henman have only one question to answer when they vote on this conditional-use permit. Is the location appropriate for this massive project? Just more than 43 percent of the landowners have signed a formal protest petition stating that they do not want to live in an industrial park.

The actual percentage of landowners against this project is closer to 67 percent. Some of the formal protest signatures were thrown out. Those signatures were thrown out due to land that was in estate probate, or the legal owner of the property didn't write "trustee" behind their name. These are the landowners that live within 1,000 feet of where these intrusive machines are proposed to be built.

I use the word intrusive because there is no other way to describe how these 67 percent feel about being forced by others to live under conditions they had not chosen for themselves.

Conditions from which the county itself vowed to protect.

These are the questions that the county commissioners should consider in deciding this issue:

Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors of the project be subjected to noise when country living is so peaceful and quiet?
Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors have their view obstructed that they have come to enjoy and expect with living in the country?
Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors have the wildlife they have come to enjoy watching begin to vanish?
Should the 100 plus adjoining neighbors need to worry about health concerns of their families and themselves and feel like guinea pigs in an experiment of let's wait and see if there really is any adverse health side effects of these turbines?
Should these 100 plus adjoining neighbors worry that if they try to sell their homes will they have to take a significant and dramatic financial loss?
Will that one reason (whatever that reason may be) those 100 plus adjoining neighbors had for making their home in the country be taken away from them?
Are we taking away any further development of the city of Hays with this controversial undertaking?

In my opinion, this area is too populated for this type of venture; too many lives will be forever changed and that change will be for the worse. There are other counties in this state that welcome this type of industrialism with open arms. This county and the people immediately adjacent to the project area do not welcome this project.

A yes vote by the county commissioners will be a violation of the zoning rules and regulations which were adopted by the commissioners.

A yes vote will force these landowners to live with an intrusion into their everyday lives which will be unacceptable and a destruction of the lives they have built.

I am praying that just one of these three gentlemen will have the courage to take a stand on what is their duty to protect the people of Ellis County and vote no on the conditional-use permit.

Forcing turbines on landowners is wrong.

Mary Barnes
615 Munjor Road
Hays, Kansas

Ellis County Commission Letter of Support for Disgen, Aug. 29, 2005

2007-08-22T10:42:00.000-05:00

Here I have reproduced two key documents revealing the full extent of our previous County Commission's support for the wind energy project. They raise many interesting questions when considered in light of the current efforts by two of these same Commissioners to delay a decision on the project as long as possible. This delay effectively grants Iberdrola maximum opportunity to alter, remodel and repackage their sloppy application in the face of its imminent demise. These documents reveal the blind, unquestioning, and unconditional support granted to Disgen by Mr. Berens and Mr. Pfannenstiel while they were supposedly acting in Ellis County's best interests. The contents of the letter stand in stark contrast to many of these commissioners' more recent public and private communications to their constituents in which they have expressed (feigned?) concern about public health issues, loss of property values, etc.

The Letter:

Dale Osborn
President
Distributed Generation Systems, Inc.
200 Union Boulevard, Suite 304
Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Re: Proposed Ellis County Wind Energy Project

Dear Mr. Osborn:

On Monday, August 8, 2005 Mr. Eric Simons, Director of Business Development for Distributed Generation Systems, Inc. (Disgen) and Project Manager for the proposed Ellis County Wind Energy Project, presented Disgen's concept for this new wind farm at our regular weekly meeting.

From that presentation we understand that Disgen has been working on developing this project for the past two years, has entered into land agreements with numerous landowners for property amounting to almost 10,000 acres and has been gathering meteorological data for the past one and one half years. It is also our understanding that the wind data indicates that the project site, located directly west and south west of the City of Hays has an excellent wind resource and that as a result Disgen now wishes to pursue the actual construction of such a project depending on obtaining a contract to either sell the project itself or to sell the power from the project.

As the governing Board of Ellis County, we, the Ellis County Commissioners, are very interested in encouraging sustainable economic development that will benefit the citizens of our County. After hearing Mr. Simons' presentation it is our unanimous desire to express our support for Disgen's proposed wind farm to be built west and southwest of Hays. This support is offered regardless of whether the project is for the benefit of KCPL or Midwest Energy and regardless of size, as we also understand that the project can be anywhere from 50-200 megawatts. The Ellis County Commission will issue a Conditional Approval for the project within 30 days of successful contract award by Disgen, Inc. with the expectation that requirements identified in Attachment "A" and Attachment "B" will be provided as detailed. Final Approval will be issued by the Ellis County Commission within 14 days of compliance to Attachment "A" and Attachment "B" by Disgen, Inc.

We welcome your efforts in Ellis County and look forward to assisting you in bringing this wind energy project to fruition.

Sincerely,

Board of Ellis County Commissioners

(signed)
Dennis J. Pfannenstiel, Chairman
Vernon L. Berens, Member
Christopher S. Channell, Member

(ATTACHMENT "B")

ELLIS COUNTY
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
WIND ENERGY PROJECT
8-29-05

(ISSUES SPECIFIC TO WIND ENERGY PROJECTS)

Unless otherwise specified, the following information shall be provided no later than commencement of construction. When field or design conditions require significant change in project scope, submittal shall be made within 30 days of change.

1. Provide site plan that details location of existing structures, location of proposed structures (including towers /turbines and buildings), location of homes within 1/2 mile of proposed project boundary, location of commercial structures within the project boundaries, locati on of existing electrical transmission lines and facilities, location of existing utilities and casements within the project boundary, location of underground pipelines or underground utilities within the project boundary, and location of proposed electrical lines.
2. Information detailing the type, size, maximum and minimum height, rotor size, rotor material, color, rated power output, performance, safety, and noise characteristics of each proposed wind turbine model, tower, and electrical transmission equipment.
3. Provide a Phase One Environmental Screening Report as per industry standards. .4. Provide an accurate computer generated visual simulation from vantage points as
agreed to by developer and Ellis County staff.
5. Provide tower/turbine details that assure tower shall not be lattice-type or other design that provide perches.
6. Turbine blades shall have a minimum ground clearance of 4O feet, at the lowest point of rotation and calculated for all directions.
7. Tower shall be setback from public roadways a minimum of one times the tip height plus 75 feet from the road centerline.
8. Tower shall be setback a minimum of 1,000 feet from existing residences.
9. Tower shall be setback from existing overhead utilities a minimum of one times the tip height plus 40 feet.
10. Tower shall be setback from adjoining property not under lease by the developer for the wind energy project a minimum of 500 feet to the nearest tip of the rotor for property.
11. Electrical lines shall be installed underground, except for connection to transmission lines or factors related to culturally sensitive areas that dictate aboveground installation.

Ellis County Zoning Regulations Examined

2007-08-05T11:28:00.000-05:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News Aug. 3, 2007, by J.P. Michaud)

I wonder how many people interested in the wind farm debate have read the 184 pages of county zoning regulations. Bear in mind that these regulations were written by wind farm advocates Lance Russell and Jo Kraus (with assistance from David Yearout) for the specific purpose of attracting a wind energy project to Ellis County to directly benefit the Kraus family. The attraction? With issuance of a conditional use permit, most liability is shifted from the developer to the county authority that issued the permit. Injured residents must then sue their own county instead of, or in addition to, suing the company for any damages incurred.

Let’s start with some of the ‘Purpose’ statements of the regulations that seem quite ironic when viewed in the context of the multiple threats posed by wind energy development.

“To promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County, Kansas.”
“To conserve good agricultural land…”
“To regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings…”
“To provide for adequate light and air, and acceptable noise levels..”

Solid arguments have already been advanced why the wind energy development is completely incompatible with these primary objectives and would sacrifice the quality of life of all those living in its vicinity.

These regulations restrict residential construction to 2 ½ story buildings – but also permit the construction of wind turbines 40 stories tall within 1000 ft of existing residences. How can this possibly be considered fair and equitable treatment of the citizenry? It clearly sets the stage for blatant exploitation of rural residents.

Of further interest are the contents of “Attachment B” submitted by CPV corporation to the County Commission outlining ‘approval conditions’ for the wind energy project, conditions presumably found acceptable by our County Commission of August, 2005. These state that “Information detailing the type, size, height, rotor size, rotor material, color, rated power output, performance, safety, and noise characteristics of each proposed wind turbine” will be provided “no later than commencement of construction”.

So our friendly wind developers want a blank check to install turbines of any size or color, of any noise or safety specifications, as they see fit. But they promise to inform us of these minor details once they begin construction.

There are 5 separate references to a “Comprehensive Plan” within the zoning regulations that would presumably serve as a guideline for assessing the community impacts of any large scale development such as a wind park – and yet no such Comprehensive Plan exists. None. We’re told they are working on one. Another ‘carte blanche’ for wind energy.

Finally, there are a total of 26 pages of regulations on signs – how tall they can be, how many you can have, etc. etc. Regulations for wind energy development? Slightly less than a page and a half. Apparently massive towers with whirling blades that slice and dice birds and bats, draw lighting strikes, generate stray voltage surges, cause continual visual and auditory disturbances are less of an environmental concern to our zoning board than signs that advertise businesses or proclaim first amendment rights. (Note: Given these latter have been repeated targets of vandalism, what are the prospects for wind turbines that are 1000 times more intrusive than any 4 x 8 ft sign?)

Regulations for wind energy development in other counties consists of 50-60 pages and place responsibilities on the developer to ensure all manner of protections for adjacent properties, wildlife, ground water contamination, etc. Since our turbines can be any color Iberdrola wants (read massive advertising billboards), we might be better off to consider them signs and limit them to 7 ft in height.

Indecision, or more corruption?

2007-08-02T10:23:00.000-05:00

(submitted to Hays Daily News by J.P. Michaud, Aug.2, 2007)

Personal communications with county comissioners by various people have all returned the same result: they have made up their minds on the wind farm issue, but they aren’t telling anyone - yet. It all smacks of deeper corruption of local politics. Why leave their constituents hanging and perpetuate the acrimony between opposing sides for no good reason? It plays into the hands of our would-be industrialists who are scrambling daily to salavage their corrupt business deal with unscrupulous tactics. Like continuing to ghost-write letters from supposed supporters. Like trying to buy off opponents one by one to invalidate their protest petition and whittle away at the opposition. Like trying to publicly pressure the one commissioner who has been forthright enough to state his reservations about the development.

I was greatly heartened to learn of the grass-roots opposition to Iberdrola’s aggressive and despotic wind energy development in Oaxaca, Mexico. The people of Hays and Ellis County could learn a lot about how to resist corporate exploitation from these impoverished, uneducated, and yet couragous and well-informed indigenous peoples. They seem to have better awareness of their impending environmental doom than many of our more educated and more affluent local residents who blindly accept all the false promises of wind energy developers at face value. I encourage everyone to download and watch the 13 min video “Windmills of Capitalism” available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwBzfUa1Ff4

Despite their tardiness in this matter, our county commissioners want to politicize their decision to the fullest extent possible when they do render it, as though they want the same attention the zoning board got when they rendered their biased and tainted recommendation. Why else would they try to get people to pack the Schenk building simply to hear them vote aye or nay? The only draw for the zoning board meetings was the opportunity for public input, which the commission has clearly rejected at this point. They want the spotlight for themselves – but only once they have all their theatrics properly orchestrated.

The county commission seems to be postponing the inevitable – but they can’t postpone the next election that will surely punish those commissioners who choose to support this project. There are only two possible explanations for this unconscionable delay: corruption or cowardice. Are they waiting for public attention to wane, or are they negociating more graft from the wind farm developers?

An Open Letter to Mr. Patrick Lowry

2007-07-30T21:28:00.000-05:00

This is an open letter to Mr. Patrick Lowry, publisher and editor of the Hays Daily News, from Jacinta Faber.

Dear Mr. Lowry,

I am writing this letter in response to your commentary, “Weather more tame than wind arguments”, in the Hays Daily News of July 15, 2007. There were several errors made in your comments concerning my part in opposing the proposed wind project. One is a technical one. The quote you used from my open letter was published in the Ellis County Environmental Awareness blog (this blog) and was never published in the HDN, though you claimed all of your quotes came from the HDN.

The other mistake is the more important one. You took out of context my suggestion that a breach of journalistic ethics had been committed by the HDN with the endorsement of the wind project. If you read my letter more closely, you will find that my concern has been and continues to be your written support of the project early on in the debate. Newspapers, including the HDN, have a long history of taking editorial positions and backing political candidates. However, the endorsement comes at the end of the campaign--certainly not at the beginning. If you were to do endorse a candidate early in a campaign, your action would suggest that any subsequent coverage might be reflecting your editorial position and not be as objective as possible. I believe that your early endorsement of the industrial wind project negatively affected the coverage of this highly controversial issue.

Mr. Lowry, you seem to confuse constructive criticism with a personal attack. My intention is not to attack but to question what appears to be problematic media coverage. You have a gold mine of potential stories to investigate, beginning with David Yearout, the consultant for the zoning commission, to the obvious conflict of interest within the zoning commission along with irregularities in following the zoning regulations. Instead, you rely on a “ he said, she said” form of journalism with little concern for the validity of the claims.

I understand that investigative reporting may be a thing of the past for small town newspapers and that your profit comes from advertising. You may not want to bite the hand that feeds you, but it causes me to wonder: what is the purpose of the HDN’s existence? Arguably, the industrial wind project is the biggest story to hit Ellis County. I believe you are missing a golden opportunity to do some real investigative journalism and actually make a difference in the lives of those residing in Ellis County. It is probably too late for that, but it is never too late to learn from your mistakes.

Jacinta Faber

All projects should well-placed & thoroughly collaborated with everyone affected

2007-07-28T17:49:00.000-05:00

This letter was submitted by Ellis County resident, Penny Davis:

The Hays Daily News reporting of CPV’s compensation offer to those living in the project area begs further reporting of the facts and requires much clarification.

My husband and I are property owners in the proposed project area. We have not received one visit, telephone call or letter, offering us any sort of compensation. I can’t say they haven’t approached anyone, but ask many of the landowners opposed to the project location, and they will likely tell you of an experience similar to ours.

We have attempted to host conversations with the CPV and leasing landowners in the area. We began by sending a letter to all of the individuals living in the project area and those who had signed leases with CPV shortly after we found out about the project.

Interestingly, we were made aware of the project when a friend emailed us the map submitted by CPV, with our house in the middle of around 10 turbines. Yes, that’s right, no disclosure when we bought our home several months before the application, and no effort by CPV or leasing landowners to work with us or even inform us of the application.

In response to our letter to request dialogue with our neighbors regarding our questions and concerns, we received many civil phone calls from neighbors opposed to the location of the project.

We only received one phone call from a leasing landowner. During this call, we were threatened, peppered with insults, and told in no uncertain terms to mind our own business. The project manager did call us after being told we were sending letters to the community. She met with my husband one time. During that conversation she informed him that there was no money in the project budget for any sort of compensation to offset our losses.

In our attempts to visit face to face with other landowners supportive of the project they insisted that this discussion take place after the issue has been resolved by the county. Further, a few of our neighbors also opposed to this location, have described to us their experience of being harassed by CPV or their representatives on Memorial Day weekend.

This distasteful behavior prompted many of us in the area to seek legal protection and request that future communication originated by CPV include our legal counsel.

It continues to be very disturbing to me that CPV makes statements to the press that are so different from our experience with this project. Even more disturbing is that the HDN will take the word of the project manager and print it as if it were absolute fact.

CPV has not made the good faith effort to genuinely work through the multitude of issues inherent in placing this project so close to so many homes before (or for that matter even after) the project was proposed.

Proximity to transmission lines is no excuse for the bad location. Transmission lines transmit, which means they run great distances across unpopulated land.

Other wind projects recognize this fact, and place their turbines in isolated rural areas, not close to cities.

It is vital that the Commissioners take the step to deny this application.

This will allow appropriate and much-needed revisions to be made to the zoning regulations before consideration of another application. Perhaps it will also send the message to CPV-Iberdrola and future applicants, that the citizens of Ellis County will not be manipulated or divided.

We will only support a project well founded, well placed and thoroughly collaborated with everyone affected.

Submitted by:
Penny Davis
1083 210th Ave.
Hays, KS 67601

Concessions on wind farm not a reasonable expectation

2007-07-26T13:24:00.000-05:00

by J.P. Michaud
(submitted to Hays Daily News, July 26)

Public appeals for concessions by opposing sides in the wind farm debate seem futile. I am sure that everyone embroiled in the controversy would love to find comfortable 'middle ground' that would restore peace among neighbors in the project area. But I can't imagine where this middle ground could possibly be found.

You either like the appearance of wind turbines, or you don't. A handful of landowners will either get rich at the expense of their neighbors, or they won't. Many more rural residents who value their peace and quiet in the country will either see their property values plummet and their quality of life destroyed, or they won’t. Hays will either be permanently blighted with an ugly industrial development sprawling over 10,000 acres, or it won't. There is no middle ground, just as there is no apparent limit to the lies and misrepresentations of wind industry developers hungry to harvest our tax dollars in the name of saving the planet.

Proponents can talk all they want about the concessions they are willing to make, the compensation packages they are willing to negotiate, the conditions they would be willing to accept, but it is all too little, too late. These things might have been elements of an open, honest development proposal some 2-3 years ago, but they weren't because it wasn't. Now they amount to nothing more than a desperate strategy of damage control as proponents scramble to try and salvage their investment, an investment that hinged all along on the arrogant assumption they could manipulate county zoning to suit their own ends. At this point, these are not concessions but merely ploys to try and whittle away at the unity of opponents. The only concession with any meaning is required of opponents - the acceptance of a wind farm - a concession that has been soundly rebuked by the majority of affected landholders who have nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.

Why should the opponents, the defenders, be expected to consider concessions from their attackers, simply because they are under attack? A good analogy would be a request to divert water from a public river to fill a private lake. When those losing water downstream protest, the applicant proposes a 'concession' in which the size of his lake is reduced. The real concession is still that required from those losing water downstream - the applicant has only volunteered to reduce the amount of his thievery, rather than forgo the theft. A wind farm of any kind in the proposed location will rob Hays of many other sources of revenue and all manner of future development opportunities, most of which cannot be imagined by the community at present.

The wind farm is either acceptable in its proposed location, or it isn't. You either buy into the propaganda of those parties with financial interests in this aggressive development, or you support the rights of opponents to live in peace and preserve their homes, their families, and their quality of life. Pick a side.

Location Matters & Other Ways to Save Energy

2007-07-20T15:36:00.001-05:00

This letter was submitted by Mary Barnes, resident of Ellis County, Kansas

Location, location, location.

This phrase is frequently used among Realtors and business owners. When a real estate agent is attempting to sell a parcel of land or home, the prospective buyer is enticed with a prime location, whether it is next to the children's school, place of employment, a beautiful park or the hustle and bustle of a shopping district. When a business owner wants to move their business into a new building, again it is all about location and whether or not it will draw customers to make the most profit.

But when those of us who may be forced to live among the turbines are protesting the conditional-use permit, we are told we shouldn't worry about the location.

Location seems to be of critical importance to CPV/Iberdrola. These industrial wind developers are locating their efforts to the U.S. because Europe does not want them any more. Adverse impacts to our landscape and health can no longer be denied.

Yes, location is of equal importance to many homeowners. We are called NIMBYs because we don't like the location.

No, I personally don't want them in my backyard, frontyard or anywhere else in Ellis County.

As far as the $600,000 per year payment in lieu of taxes goes, we were all doing fine before and we will go on being fine after this project is blown out of Ellis County. Ellis County is a nourishing county that is a great "little county" with quality and heart.

We don't need CPV/Iberdrola in our community to destroy what we have come to treasure.

Simple steps are truly green.

If we are concerned about dependency on fossil fuel, greenhouse effect and general well-being of our natural resources, I ask you HDN reader: What are you personally doing to help these energy issues? There are many things we as concerned citizens of the earth can do if we are willing to do them to be earth friendly. For instance:

* Use high-efficiency energy light bulbs.

* Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter.

* Ride bikes whenever possible or walk.

* Barbecue or use a crock pot or microwave instead of using the stove or oven.

* Use cold water to wash your clothing; cold-water detergents work effectively.

* The next time you buy a vehicle, make sure it gets the best gas mileage you can afford; don't buy just because you like the looks.

* Turn lights and TVs off when you are not using them.

* Hang clothes on a clothesline instead of using the dryer.

* Use fans and ceiling fans instead of turning on the AC at the first sign of heat.

* Turn heat down 5 to 10 degrees at night during the winters when you are not home or sleeping. Use thermal blankets to keep yourself warm.

* Recycle. Kansas is the worst state in the U.S. for its contribution to recycling. Many products that are made from non-recycled items use much more CO2 to manufacture than the same products made with recycled items.

* Stay at home or in Kansas to vacation, instead of driving or flying across the U.S. or to another country.

* Carpool to work whenever you can; children can take turns carpooling with neighboring friends.

Maybe you can do 10 or even more of the suggestions. Perhaps you have other ways to save energy. These are not threatening to our well-being, physically, mentally nor monetarily. Get everyone in your family involved in energy conservation.

Let's all pitch in to make a difference. We can save more energy than the 140 plus turbines could ever produce. We all must do what we can to quench our thirst of fossil fuel and not depend on a select few to carry the burden. If we would all be a little more saving of our energy, in the long run we would not be tearing apart our community and friendships.

Mary Barnes
615 Munjor Road
Hays, Kansas

There's Nothing Farm-Like About Turbines

2007-07-18T19:08:00.000-05:00

This letter was submitted to the HDN by Hays resident, Michael Fellows, in July 2007:

On July 17, I had the opportunity to drive to Copeland for business. I hadn't been on Highway 56 for several years. I was shocked that after leaving Kinsley I could see many huge structures looming on the horizon.

It wasn't hard to realize that I was looking at the wind farm I had been reading so much about.

As I drove on, I was less amazed and more distraught that anyone would call what I saw, a farm. My uncle is a farmer and his farm doesn't look anything at all like what I saw. The words wind and farm conjure up a friendly pastoral connotation. An image that is harmonious with nature.

What I saw is an industrial wasteland. Row after row of huge machines placed menacingly along the highway. They evoke images of the future and the "Terminator," a science-fiction/horror film. It doesn't look anything at all like a farm. The vista looks like a factory, a huge money-making, profit-sucking corporate machine.

There weren't any farm hands working the area. Machine after machine of cold hard steel and there was no one working.

How does that benefit the area?

They are a distraction to drive by as one wonders who would do that to the land, and why? If we need to make an economic impact on the land why not put in pig farms and raise animals? At least we would only notice it if the wind was blowing from the west, but at least we could in clear conscience call them "farms."

The scene was repeated later at Montezuma, but the machines were somewhat smaller. I can see why they are placed there. No one lives there. No one has property to take advantage of a view or a lifestyle.

What they did in those areas bears little resemblance to what they will do to the people who live in and around Hays. Those huge monsters will rob the people of Hays and the surrounding area of one of the few natural gifts we have in Ellis County: our "view." It is the view that was enjoyed by people who settled in this area long before us.

Those early settlers were true stewards of the land. They raised animals and crops in the area. Those people improved the area rather then destroying it by greed and misinformation promoting a sense of progress.

Arriving in Copeland, I visited with my client and remarked about what I had seen. She would only say she was glad she didn't have to look at the turbines or have them spoiling what she had come to enjoy.

Without having made the trip, I would have never been aware at how surreal or even frightening the turbines must be to live under and with.

To have huge 40-story machines towering on the western skyline of Hays, tells everyone who will visit Hays, that we forfeited a precious resource, God's grand landscape, and it was done for money. Not green energy, but greed energy.

When our heritage of our homes and lives is ruined, what will the people of Hays do?

Michael Fellows
2725 B Augusta Lane
Hays, Kansas

Neighbors Have Rights

2007-07-13T15:02:00.000-05:00

Submitted by Hays resident, Tammy Deterding

(I am writing in response to a Hays Daily article of July 3, "Commissioners Deal with Zoning Permits." A local businessman proposed to place an automotive repair shop on his land north of Hays.)

The commissioners, in an attempt to enlighten this gentleman about the possible pitfalls of establishing a business of this nature in Ellis County, had questions concerning the amount of "junk vehicles" that may accumulate on his property. It appears that the commissioners were expressing concern for the landowners surrounding the gentleman's property, specifically their view of the property from their homes.

One commissioner stated, "My concern ... if we get a bunch of vehicles out there, we are going to have people complaining." Thank you commissioners for acknowledging that aesthetic problems are good grounds for rejecting a zoning change.

The commissioners made nine vehicles the limit. That means placed end to end, the total length of the chain would be about 135 feet, based on the average of three of the vehicles I measured.

If the commissioners are saying that the junk vehicles would be too big of a visual obstruction for the people in northern Ellis County, would it not follow that the commissioners would extend the same respect to the one hundred families to the southwest of Hays facing the possibility of having 140 wind turbines 400 feet tall placed very near their homes?

The commissioners asked another land owner to clarify his intended use of his land for recreational purposes. I guess it would make a difference if the recreational use involved a few sand volleyball pits or a race track.

Again, it all comes down to respect for your neighbors, those who have to look at, listen to and live by proposed land development.

I am reassured in knowing that not only do the landowners have rights, but also those that live by them. Their rights deserve to be protected, too.

Tammy Deterding
1145 Pine Ridge Drive
Hays, Kansas

Division and Discourse

2007-07-12T11:58:00.000-05:00

"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of emotion."
- Robert Quillen

Over the last few months, I, along with many others have been engaged in a public dialogue concerning the proposed industrial wind turbine development in Ellis County. As a concerned citizen and landowner in the proposed area, I have reviewed a plethora of information regarding the wind industry, wind turbines and the effect they seem to have on people and communities. For many reasons, I am decidedly against the current project and its current location. Though I am tempted to enumerate these reasons and the evidence behind them, my efforts here must be focused on matters infinitely more important.

Thomas Jefferson is said to have lived his life in accordance to his statement; ”I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friendship.” I have taken this Jeffersonian charge seriously in my own life and have attempted to appreciate and understand human diversity in culture, values and opinions.

As a result, I have been rewarded with a broad menagerie of friendships, colleagues and perspectives that I otherwise would not have given a second glance. In fact, many of my closest friends do not share my religious or political leanings, yet we are able to find and relish in our common ground.

To be honest, I do not always live up to this lofty goal. When I feel threatened or vulnerable, it is quite tempting to encamp in an ideology or emotion. It becomes easier to demonize the opposition and react in the spirit of a phrase popularized by a leading political figure of our time, “You’re either with us or against us”. This “us versus them” mentality creates a cavernous schism, separating us from people with whom we share goals, interests and opinions. Furthermore, it renders it almost impossible to understand or appreciate them.

The proposal to place an industrial wind development just outside of Hays has split our community deeply. Many people have developed and espoused impassioned arguments over the proposal. These passions have lead to irresponsible behavior among some and alienated others entirely.

This debate is perhaps one of the most important public decisions we will make as a community in our lifetime. It is imperative that we discuss the issues with one another to reach a reasonable conclusion. As we do however, we must resist the temptation to let our fears and personal interests dictate our tactics. If we honestly engage in rational dialogue, we will surely find that we are all closer together than we otherwise imagine.

Most all of us are concerned about the environment and our impact on it. We are almost all for renewable energy and conservation of our natural resources. We all desire to see our community economically vibrant and socially enriched. We may not agree on every issue, but we can agree to stand above the temptation to cut one another down, in the effort to advance our own position.

I understand there is much at stake. There are local individuals who stand to gain or lose financially. Some local individuals fear for the health of their families. Many community members want to be involved in trying to stem the tide of the rampant consumption of resources. There are also national and global players with a stake in the outcome of this debate that stand to gain or lose large sums of money and influence. These factors provide a strong allure to use whatever means necessary to win.

Such a Pyrrhic victory will come with tremendous cost to individuals and to the community at large. Wind developments in other communities have been adopted and denied without tearing apart the fabric of the community. This community can also make the decision to value each other more than our windy agendas.

To begin this effort in joining together as a community, I would like to invite CPV Wind Hays and the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition to participate in a public conversation. Each group could choose three individuals that have represented them in their community education efforts to advocate for their position. A neutral representative in the community could moderate the discussion to assure an impartial forum. Such a forum could be televised to the community and emphasize the issues at hand with a unity of purpose.

Let’s not lose sight of our common ground. Let’s stand together and discuss our differences. Let’s make this about discourse, not division.

ECEAC Press Release 07-11-07

2007-07-11T11:43:00.000-05:00

The ECEAC would like to take this opportunity to express our disapproval and concern over the personal attacks, vandalism and irresponsible accusations that have been reported in the Hays Daily News over the last few weeks.

Recently, we were disappointed to learn that the HDN wrongly implicated us in one such issue that grew from an exchange between two individuals in the HDN community forum. The ECEAC not only refrained from becoming involved in this trivial argument, but encouraged others to refrain from involvement as well.

From the beginning of the proposed industrial wind development in Ellis County, the ECEAC has been committed to openly discussing the many pertinent issues. In our efforts to educate the community we have intentionally avoided personal attacks and inflammatory language. We were saddened to read recently that the project manager of CPV Wind Hays was quoted in the Hays Daily using language that does not reflect the same commitment to respecting those who do not fully agree with her.

Though this issue has deeply divided our community, we believe there are well meaning, intelligent and rational individuals on both sides. Unfortunately, there have also been incidents of irresponsible behavior that serve no purpose in an open debate.

The health and safety, economic, environmental and social impacts of this proposed project are far from resolved. As the community continues to explore these concerns, the ECEAC will pursue the central issues responsibly and respectfully. We implore everyone involved to do likewise.

Regardless of one’s opinion of this project or the ultimate decision reached by the commissioners, the citizens of Ellis County need to continue to live and work together in harmony. Please proceed with this in mind.

The Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition is a group of concerned citizens dedicated to preserving the natural rural environment of Ellis County, Kansas.

Hays Daily News a Disgrace to Journalism Ethics

2007-07-10T21:00:00.000-05:00

(submitted to the Hays Daily News July 10 - appearing who knows when)

Under Patrick Lowry, the Hays Daily News has become a sham of ethical journalism. One is forced to wonder just how many shares of Iberdrola Mr. Lowry has purchased. He has given them the most favorable coverage possible since the very beginning of our community’s struggle against this corporation.

Mr. Lowry has assigned the most junior and inexperienced of his reporters to cover this most important debate, and seems to continually editorialize their articles to massage the message to his liking.

When opponents paid four figure fees for half page ads in the HDN, these were intentionally placed immediately adjacent to glossy editorials championing the proponent’s cause.

While Krista Gordon’s lies and misrepresentations have been quoted ad nauseum in ‘articles’ covering the debate, opponents’ quotes were rarely published and often mangled or taken out of context. I mentioned to Will Manly that I wanted to examine my tower photos further before sharing them. This is somehow translated into me ‘working on them some more’ as if I am trying to photo-shop them.

The HDN gave front page coverage to a threatening sign and implied it was the responsibility of wind farm opponents without any evidence it was even linked to the debate or comprised anything more than a personal slight toward an individual widely despised since the imposition of county-wide zoning.

Opponents often wait as long as a week to see their letters in print, effectively diminishing the impact and relevance of their rebuttals. Proponent Dana Kraus is able to write satirical drivel about events on Saturday and have it appear in Monday’s paper, together with letters we submitted last Wednesday.

Every article published in the HDN that details the risks to Ellis County of embracing this industry somehow manages to end with a positive twist for the proponents and effectively equate industry propaganda with valid, independent research findings, the vested interests of proponents notwithstanding.

It bears remembering that, were we to have relied on the editorial wisdom of the Hays Daily News 18 years ago, we would all now be living in the shadow of a lead smelter and everyone born in Ellis County under the age of 17 would have had an elevated risk of birth defects.

There is a term for the subversion of democracy to serve the ends of those in power.

There is a term for the subjugation of the common people so that a privileged elite class may profit at their expense.

That term is ‘fascism’.

Fascism is alive and well in Ellis County and the Hays Daily has become its primary public relations tool.

Environmental Justice is the Issue

2007-07-10T20:55:00.000-05:00

Posted by Angie Grant, July 9, 2007

In his effort to promote wind energy at the expense of others, Patrick Parke dismisses objectors as NIMBYs and touts the 'greater good' that will be achieved. Opponents are starting to feel as if we have entered an unending game of 'whack-a-mole' - no matter how many times a false assertion is debunked, it pops up again somewhere else with a different face on it.

"… lower property values, health issues, pollution, danger to wildlife, etc. Moving the wind farm doesn’t change a single one [of these]."

Excuse me? Moving it where people don’t live and ecological diversity is low or already damaged changes every one of them.

"…87 percent of the respondents said the government should immediately encourage alternate energy with subsidies and incentives…"

And as usual, the government puts almost all of these subsidies toward one objective - wind power - because it provides the most immediate profit to the biggest corporations with the most powerful lobbyists, regardless of the fact that wind is the least promising of all alternative energy sources and will never meet more than a tiny fraction of our growing demand.

" If we embrace the oil business, how can we even think about rejecting a wind farm?"

Another blatant fallacy. The fact that the oil business was poorly regulated and caused environmental damage in the area can hardly be used as justification for permitting even more ecological degradation by failing to adequately regulate further industrial development.

"Loss of the potential $600,000 annual “payment in lieu of taxes” effectively raises property taxes for every Ellis County taxpayer."

Garbage. Almost any alternative land use conceivable would generate more than this miserable pittance of a bribe.

"The landowners leasing to CPV have been accused of greed. Can we say the same about those fighting to preserve their property values?"

No, we can't. There is a monumental difference between trying to preserve one's existing investment and attempting to generate a new form of revenue at the expense of your neighbors.

"I believe the NIMBY position will raise everyone’s utility rates."

On the contrary, it is the incorporation of expensive and unreliable wind energy that is certain to raise rates - several years down the road when all the subsidies disappear and ratepayers are forced to pick up the slack.

Finally, the objection to NIMBYism in principle is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of every American citizen to "health, welfare and the pursuit of happiness". Nowhere in the constitution does it state that citizens might be required to sacrifice these rights for any 'greater good'. Furthermore, history shows that NIMBY activism is far more likely to result in responsible ecological stewardship and environmental protection than any form of corporate exploitation.

More relevant than NIMBY is the concept of 'Environmental Justice', which demands the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in decisions of large environmental consequence and that states "no one group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences from industrial, municipal and commercial operations."

The wind energy industry continues to deny that their rape of our countryside has any environmental impact whatsoever, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Are we prepared to write them a blank check in Ellis County on the basis of their profit-driven assertions?

Angie Grant

Just Not Worth the Personal Risks and Sacrifices

2007-07-08T10:28:00.002-05:00

The following letter is submitted by Sheryl Butler, a longtime resident of Ellis County, Kansas:

Risk and sacrifices. That has been a recent theme with this wind farm proposal that members of the community as well as some of the zoning members are wanting to stand on. It has been said that progress requires some involvement of risk and that we all (people in and close to the project area) should understand that and will be willing to sacrifice for that cause.

Let me share with you a closer look at the risks and sacrifices that everyone seems to be willing for us to take. My husband Mike and I have been against this project for a variety of reasons that I have shared with letters I have written and the presentation that I have helped give. Those reasons have been outlined as being connected to the loss of our way of life, loss of the beauty of the countryside, loss of property values, etc.

But there is a much bigger reason that we have been watching with interest as to what takes place with this decision. A reason that is very personal and that could be very devastating to our family. A reason that I hoped we would not need to get into and share but with the recent viewpoints and some recent research I think that it is time to get real.

I think that it is important for people to understand just how real this mess is. Many people know my husband, Mike, as he does a lot of work for many people around town with his business. What people may not know is that Mike suffers from an illness he came up with about three years ago. He was referred to the National Jewish Hospital in Denver as they specialize in lung and immune system problems.

Mike has ended up being diagnosed with a rare lung immune sinus disease. Through much diagnosis and consultations that National Jewish has had throughout the country, the only thing that they have been able to do for Mike is to put him on medication to help control his symptoms. Right now, this illness is lying dormant in Mike in that it is not progressing but sits ready to be activated at any time. His doctor likens it to a fire that the flames have been put out but continues to smolder and wait.

Our opposition group has presented the public, zoning members and the county commissioners with many facts and concerns regarding health risks associated with living close to the wind turbines. These facts have been looked at as somewhat petty and over-exaggerated. A new press release has been given to The Hays Daily News and county commissioners regarding some recent research regarding the effects of living near turbines. We just became informed of the details of this research on June 8.

This research clearly shows that many illnesses can be created and/or intensified by wind turbines that are in close proximity to families. Lung damage is one of those possibilities.

If this wind turbine project is allowed to be near homes, the health risks are real. Our family stands to lose much more than just our property value and scenic countryside. I and my two young daughters could lose Mike if this wind complex activates Mike’s disease. If Mike’s disease is activated, he will become very sick and would very likely result in eventual death.

Risk and sacrifices.

How many risks and sacrifices is this community, zoning commission and county commission willing for those of us in and near the project to take?

Is one life expendable? Maybe two?

Are you willing to chance that the research that the opposition has given is bogus? For Mike and I and our two girls, the risks are very real for our family.

Perhaps, if we are talking about sacrifices, maybe the landowners and the county could sacrifice their revenue on this project by donating it to research on the health effects of wind turbines.

That way, all of us would be sacrificing, wouldn’t we?

Submitted by:
Sheryl R. Butler
779 Golf Course Road
Hays, Kansas

The future of Ellis County depends on it

2007-07-05T23:12:00.000-05:00

This letter from local Hays resident, Keith Pfannenstiel, was published in the Hays Daily News, July 5th, 2007:

Previously, I pointed out that the proposed Ellis County wind farm is a big money issue, fueled by the global warming frenzy. I also mentioned the conflicts of interest associated with landowners helping to implement inadequate regulations while holding key positions on the zoning board. I have questioned the total lack of impact studies and proper regulations to protect our citizenry. This project has raised more questions than answers, and the division it has created in our community is perhaps the greatest casualty of the battle.

Unfortunately, people involved in the dispute are fighting several different battles and don’t even realize it.

One battle is fought to protect the belief that wind energy is a viable renewable energy source. Other battle lines are formed around the many questions concerning the potential adverse effects of such a large industrial electrical generation facility. The social and economic impact it has on the community at large, the potential health and safety concerns of individuals living in and around the location, the impact on the natural prairie environment and many other unsettled issues are brought to the front lines. The battle has raged into a multi-front war that has become complicated to such a degree that the original issue seems lost in the fray.

What we must remember is that this battle never was, nor will ever be, for or against alternative energy, but is and will always be about “location.”

The location is what determines the risks to the families directly impacted and the community at large. It is the location more than any other factor that will determine the answers to the questions at hand. The health and safety risks, the economic impacts and the environmental questions are all largely dependent on the location of the project. Furthermore, location is the reason Ellis County adopted countywide zoning.

Countywide zoning begins with a comprehensive plan. This plan provides the vision of the community and it sets forth principles that guide the decisions of the commission. The comprehensive plan is the foundation of the zoning — regulations — a foundation that Ellis County is lacking.

As a result, this issue has become so convoluted that even the county zoning and planning board members didn’t understand their roles.

Instead, as they explained their reasons to vote in favor of the project, they became a casualty of Iberdrola’s massive public image to campaign. Spending vast resources on every front, Iberdrola pushed an agenda to manipulate the controversy, attempting to make it appear that people must either be for or against wind energy.

In doing so, they have camouflaged the real issues associated with this industrial development.

This is not a “once in a lifetime,” “now or never” or “one-time only” offer. Operating under that assumption is an extremely dangerous way to make decisions.

With all this in mind, it is imperative that our county commissioners deny this application and impose a moratorium to delay any new applications until we can fix the problems that have come to the surface as a result of this application.

Whether or not we are in favor of renewable energy is not the question.

Nestling an 11,000-acre wind development in the only population center in northwest Kansas places people at risk and uses land that could otherwise contribute to the growth of Hays. To do so is foolhardy and lacks vision. Ellis County can support renewable energy, support the growth of Hays and protect its citizenry — and do it all at the same time.

We must have a comprehensive plan. Without this vision, we have no foundation by which to apply our regulations and no ability to shape our community by determining what the best uses of our resources are.

Once this is accomplished, we need an unbiased committee to reconstruct proper and adequate regulations. There is no argument that there are virtually no statutes regulating wind developer’s actions. It is the county that must protect the citizenry with a strong vision, a comprehensive plan and thorough zoning regulations.

Let’s all hope and pray that our leadership is up to that task. The future of Ellis County depends on it.

Keith Pfannenstiel
974 Mount Pleasant Road
Hays, KS 67601

Airing our dirty laundry

2007-07-04T15:59:00.000-05:00

This is a letter submitted by Jacinta Faber for publication in the Readers Forum of the Hays Daily News:

I am writing in response to Karen Mikol’s column “Time to Inject Respect Into Wind Debate” (July 4). Her main thesis—that we ought to behave civilly in civil society—is a laudable one, but I disagree with one point she makes. Ms Mikols points out that “some residents have stretched the freedom of expression past appropriate limits.” Of course, there are limitations to our free speech here in the United States, limits which have been established by legal precedent, such as speech posing a threat to our national security and speech that is obscene. And defacing signs--a violation of private property rights--goes beyond the limits.

But a public debate concerning the placement of a half-billion dollar industry in Ellis County is not something that should be limited. Such a debate is not only preferable but necessary. Justice Beverly McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court in a 1993 ruling described the utility of freedom of speech: “Freedom of speech promotes a market place of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth.” The opposition’s goal is to challenge people’s pre-established beliefs, if they have any, about proper siting of an industrial wind operation and to educate the public on the poor design and execution of the zoning regulations in Ellis County.

Ms. Mikols warns us of airing our dirty laundry by placing signs on I-70. She thinks that being up front may deter businesses from coming into Ellis County. But, of course, people deserve to know what situation they may be stepping into. In public policy decisions, there will be winner and losers, but our right to free speech is necessary to guarantee that the process leading up to the decisions is above board, open and visible to all. The history of this project would indicate that the decision-making has been anything but above board. Since 2002, while people were building homes in the Woodland Plains Addition, CPV and the lease-holders were quietly making big plans to set turbines near the area. According to family members of lease holders, whenever the topic of the potential wind project was broached, silence would ensue. If the company, the lease holders, and even the county commissioners had been more open about the project and courting more input from the community, how different things might be today.

Without freedom of speech, important issues are hidden from the public’s view. When I worked in occupational therapy out of town some years ago, I had a patient who exhibited all the symptoms of Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease, the human form of Mad-Cow Disease. This gentleman had worked in a rendering plant, where he handled the entrails, brains and other parts of the cow. Unbelievably, he and his workmates would sometimes eat the raw brains of a cow. I passed this information on to his physician. There is a definitive test for Creutzfeld-Jacob. The doctor acknowledged the possibility but refused to perform the test, basically stating that we don’t want to go there. Why? We do not want to hurt the beef industry, an industry which is very important to the Kansas economy. Thus we will keep it hidden. Similarly, there is now a documented case of a child’s health being affected by living in near proximity to modern wind turbines. There have been complaints the world over, but the wind industry and those with close ties to it refuse to acknowledge these problems. Why? They want to claim ignorance when problems do arise; they don’t want to air the dirty laundry for fear of the economic consequences.

I say let’s air our dirty laundry. There seems to be plenty of it.

--Jacinta Faber

Vibroacoustic Disease Not a Fabrication

2007-07-02T16:16:00.000-05:00

(letter submitted to the Hays Daily News, July 2, 2007)

This editorial is in response to those who have questioned the veracity of viboracoustic disease and ‘wind turbine syndrome’, most recently S.R. Zwenger who asked “can anyone provide published articles on this mysterious and elusive disease?”.

First of all, ‘wind turbine syndrome’ is not yet recognized as a disease, but is a term coined by Dr. Pierpont to encompass an emerging complex of symptoms associated with prolonged exposre to wind turbines that derive from both visual and auditory disturbances. Description of a syndrome is the first stage in the recognition of a disease, whether it arises from biological or physical causes. Thus, the human form of mad cow disease was labelled Creutzfeld-Jacob Syndrome before its cause was identified. However, one component of wind turbine syndrome, vibroacoustic disease (VAD), is already a recognized disease and is known to be caused by low frequency noise (LFN).

Links between wind turbines and VAD have been established in a number of publications by accredited scientists, notably the doctoral dissertation of P. van den Berg at the University of Groningen, Germany and articles in the Journal of Sound and Vibration and the Journal of Low Fequency Noise, Vibration, and Acitve Control. It is an established fact that wind turbines produce LFN - it is only the varying perception of that noise and its propagation under various atmospheric conditions that is still debated.

A search of the database PubMed for ‘vibroacoustic disease’ will produce 37 peer-reviewed articles, the majority published within the past 8 years. It bears remembering that people had been smoking for almost a century before research began establishing a link to lung cancer in the late 1950’s.

Russian doctors in the 1980’s were the first to begin research into what they refered to as ’vibration disease’ in industrial machinists “to develop a system of medical, technical and organizational preventive measures… in order to control noise- and vibration-caused diseases…”. These studies were followed by others that established links between LFN and pathologies observed in textile workers (Cardoso et al. 2006, Rev. Port. Pneumol. 12: 326), the aeronautical industry (Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93: 256-279, helicopter pilots (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and other occupations with prolonged LFN exposure.

Recently, a review article summarized 25 years of research on the subject (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 13: 129-135). Furthermore, the respiratory symptoms of VAD in humans have been reliably reproduced in rodents by exposing them to LFN (Lung. 2001, 179:225-232). Based on a comprehensive study of 140 patients (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 70: A32-A39) 3 stages of VAD were recognized. Stage I, mild signs (behavioral and mood associated with repeated infections of the respiratory tract, e.g., bronchitis); Stage II, moderate signs (depression and aggressiveness, pericardial thickening and other extracellular matrix changes, light to moderate hearing impairment, and discrete neurovascular disorders); Stage III, severe signs (myocardial infarction, stroke, malignancy, epilepsy, and suicide). And before anyone scoffs at these symptoms, they should consider that the Pentagon spent decades researching LFN for its ‘weaponization’ potential.

Chronic exposure to LFN, similar to that produced by wind turbines, appears to specifically target the respiratory system causing various structural abnormalities to develop, but other pathologies also are significantly increased. These include abnormal function of the auditory lobe of the brain (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 369-274), immune system impairment (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999 3: A141-A144), cancers of the lung, especially squamous cell carcinoma (Rev. Port. Pneumol. 2006, 12: 539-544) and induction of epileptic seizures (Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999, 3: A122-A127).

In case someone contends that these peer-reviewed studies are somehow unreliable because they originate in a European country, let me point out that the US is no longer the international leader in scientific research that it was 50 years ago, and that an increasingly large proportion of scientific research in the US is now conducted by foreign-born scientists (myself included).

Belief can boil down to opinion, as Zwenger notes in his attempt to dismiss Dr. Ottley’s earlier letter, but the opinions of doctors and researchers should be given more weight than the idle musings of lay people, for these are the opinions that actively guide the advancement of science.

Wind farm is all about the money

2007-06-30T22:21:00.000-05:00

The following letter by J.P. Michaud, Ellis County resident, was printed in the Hays Daily News, on June 29, 2007:

Opponents of the wind project have recently been subjected to a series of scathing public allegations from Dana Kraus, whose hope was to retire with the money from his windmills because, “I don’t have a 401(k).”

I publicly challenge Dana to accompany me to the 400-foot met tower on Palmer land with a notary public and measure its shadow so we can triangulate its height. If it is not in excess of 300 feet, I will pay him $1,000 in cash which he can use to start a retirement plan.

To my knowledge, there have been no unlawful actions reported against project proponents. Public shaming with signs, print and the Internet to be sure, but nothing illegal and all based on facts that are matters of common knowledge and public record. Otherwise, I am sure we would all be facing lawsuits by now. In contrast, opponents have had our signs defaced, suffered several costly acts of vandalism on oil leases, and one suspicious fire in a business immediately following a petition drive there. We also have received anonymous threats and “poison pen” letters — we have simply not sought to portray ourselves as victims in the media to the extent that proponents have.

I venture that if the project’s supporters fear harassment, it is fear borne out of guilt for their own selfish greed.

We have heard proponents speak vehemently about the social benefits of wind energy and how we should embrace it to save the planet. It is cleaner electricity than that produced by burning coal. It will help reduce global warming. It will bring economic development to the community. It is the socially responsible course of action. For these reasons, they have established the Ellis County Supporters of Wind to “educate” the community.

So why was this group not formed at the project’s inception? They would have had three years to “educate” us. But regardless of whether one believes these claims, it is hard to accept them as motivation for the project.

The real motive is profit — both corporate and personal. Is anyone naive enough to believe that Disgen/CPV/Iberdrola would push this project simply to benefit our community?

After the demise of Enron, its subsidiary Enron Wind was acquired by General Electric and quickly set the tone for aggressive wind energy development in the USA. Around this time, Disgen began as “single-asset” LLC corporation. The single asset? A pile of leases and easements covertly obtained by Krista Gordon entitling them to conditional land uses. Notably, this single asset will soon be rendered worthless if their application is denied. No wonder Krista is scrambling.

Why would Iberdrola pay $67 million for a collection of land use entitlements? As Kristen Sullivan put it to me, they have the “tax appetite” for this kind of project. They have the large capital expenditures necessary to fully exploit all the federal tax breaks in ways that smaller corporations cannot, tax breaks totaling about $160 million.

Envision your tax dollars going down a pipeline directly to Spain. Iberdrola is also responsible for massive carbon emissions worldwide and is therefore highly motivated to obtain carbon credits however possible, the most attractive being obtained from government-subsidized wind energy developments. You have to be a big international player to trade carbon credits on the world stage and we are poised to become another poker chip in their stack.

Of the 15 or so people who have attended the first few supporters’ meetings, virtually all have a family or corporate interest in the project. I suspect we could learn more from them if they educated us on how to manipulate local politics for personal gain. The local profits go to seven families, and 58 percent go to Dana Kraus’s family (details here in the post “Corruption in Zoning”), while 100 families will have their quality of life destroyed and their properties devalued. Still, they publicly compare opponents to Nazis and expect us to believe that they are doing this for the good of the community and to help save the planet.

We know better. It is all about the money — these are people seeking financial gain with complete disregard for their neighbor’s health, investments and peace of mind.

Submitted by:
J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Another Wind Farm Petition Reaches County Clerk’s Desk

2007-06-29T16:02:00.001-05:00

The following article by reporter Kaley Lyon was printed in the Hays Daily News on June 29, 2007:

Another petition regarding the proposed Ellis County wind farm was presented to the Ellis County clerk Thursday. This one requests a complete moratorium on the project and consists of 760 signatures.

The document does not protest wind energy, but requests cautious and balanced deliberation before the county proceeds, states the cover letter, which is endorsed by the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition.

“The objective is to have, similar to any other project of this magnitude, a proper, government-commissioned, independent impact assessment of the economic and environmental consequences of this,” said J.P. Michaud, one of three people who submitted the petition. “It’s not an unreasonable demand.”

The signatures represent adults in Ellis County, Michaud said, and most were obtained in person, either by solicitation or petition drives.

A total of 96 signatures, however, were obtained online at the ECEAC Web site, 55 of which were not later obtained in hard copy.

About 100 signatures were collected during the ECEAC’s presentation May 2 at Fox Pavilion, he said.

“Before May 2, we had fewer than 50 (signatures),” Michaud said. “So in two months, we’ve collected over 700.”

The objective of the petition is not to protest wind energy as a whole, but to request assessments prior to decision-making, Michaud said.

“We’re not saying no to wind energy,” he said. “We’re saying that the zoning board is supposed to have a comprehensive plan in place for such a development, and they do not.”

The citizen petition requests four assessments be completed: an assessment of net economic impact, fair and equitable compensation packages for affected landowners, environmental hazards and community liability.

County Clerk Alberta Klaus said the petition will be delivered to Ellis County commissioners on Monday.

What the petition says:

We, the undersigned, request a COMPLETE MORATORIUM on the proposed Hays Wind Farm Proposal until such time as the following comprehensive assessments can be made by qualified persons or agencies without financial interests in this project:
Assessment of net economic impact of this project on the community and all affected residents.
Assessment of fair and equitable compensation packages for affected landowners whose property values will be depressed.
Assessment of the numerous environmental hazards posed by this development to the entire surrounding community, including impacts on human and animal health, water table contamination, air quality issues, noise and visual pollution, and all the localized impacts associated with the construction phase of the project.
Assessment of community liability in “worst case scenarios,” either economic or environmental.

The cover letter that accompanied the petition reads as follows:

Dear Sirs,
Please find attached a petition from the citizens of Ellis County requesting a moratorium on wind energy development in the county until such time as a qualified, independent assessment of all impacts, both environmental and economic, can be commissioned by an appropriate government authority.
Our petition has been signed by 760 adult residents of Ellis County. The majority of these signatures have been collected by members of the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition through direct personal contacts with members of their community. A small fraction was obtained online at our website (listed separately).
This is not a petition opposing wind energy, but rather a request for cautious and balanced deliberation before we proceed with a very large industrial development that will permanently alter the character of our community.
Thank you,
Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition

Call to Action: Get Involved!

2007-06-29T09:33:00.000-05:00

Citizens wishing to contact the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition about their rights or concerns regarding any environmental impact, zoning, or citizens rights issue in regard to preserving the environment of Ellis County, may write to us at P.O. Box 464, Hays, KS 67601, or directly contact these individuals:

Tim Davis, Co-Chair of ECEAC, todavis{at}fhsu.edu, 785-623-3590
John Schmeidler, ECEAC Co-Chair, jschmeidler{at}ruraltel.net, 785-259-4314
Jacinta Faber, Media Liaison, 785-628-8817

Additionally, any Ellis Co. citizens concerned about the lack of a comprehensive zoning plan in Ellis County or the zoning irregularities should make their opinions known by attending Ellis County Commission meetings (Commission Room at the Courthouse, 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas), held every Monday, and the Ellis County Planning & Zoning Meetings, held every month. Concerned citizens should also write letters to their county commissioners directly by mailing to 1204 Fort Street, Hays, Kansas. The three current commissioners for Ellis County are:

Perry S Henman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 1st District (western Hays, the city of Ellis & western Ellis Co.)
Dennis J Pfannenstiel, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 2nd District (central Hays & central Ellis Co.)
Vernon L Berens, Chairman, Ellis Co. Commissioner, 3rd District (eastern Hays, Victoria & eastern Ellis Co.): 785-735-9364, 785-735-2883

Approaching Green Energy Progressively

2007-06-29T07:18:00.000-05:00

As an ecology major at the University of Kansas, I am keenly aware of the need to reduce the negative human impact on our environment. To be successful in reducing greenhouse gasses and preserve our non-renewable resources, we have two choices: make more through renewable resources or use less energy.

On the surface, wind energy seems to be a logical solution. Free power from the wind, right? Well, not exactly. Wind energy is currently quite expensive and must be heavily subsidized by the government, with our tax dollars, to compete with traditional energy production. In addition, it is not as reliable since it cannot be effectively stored, and the wind doesn’t blow all the time. This means wind energy will never be anything more than a minor supplement for our energy needs.

Germany has over 20,000 wind turbines and leads the world in wind energy production. However, they are only able to produce 4.2% of their energy potential (48 gigawatt potential, 2 gigawatt production). To date, not one single coal-powered or other traditional power plant has been replaced. In fact, Germany has stopped subsidizing wind power and future development will cease. Obviously, wind power proved to have little impact there.

So what is a progressive, effective solution to the energy problems we have? I propose that instead of spending so much money to make more energy, we use just a fraction of that money for conservation strategies that have little to no effect on our day-to-day lives.

Here’s an example. The federal government currently subsidizes wind developers approximately $1.25 million for each 1.5 MW turbine (data extrapolated from Keith Martin, Chadbourne and Parke, LLP). Iberdrola, the international corporation that has proposed the wind project in Ellis Country, would receive over $160 million from the United States. As taxpayers, we collectively cover that cost and then again pay for the electricity that it produces in our energy bill.

Now, instead of subsidizing a large foreign utility corporation, what if the federal government bought each house in Ellis county ten 15-watt compact fluorescent bulbs? These bulbs, which last an average of 5 years, would produce the same amount of light as 75-watt traditional light bulbs, but use much less energy per bulb. Based on average usage and production figures, this strategy would save enough electricity to replace two wind turbines (with energy left over) and would only cost the government $312,000. The rest of the energy could go elsewhere, and by using less energy in our households, we would save money in our electric bill.

Additionally, all of the problems and controversy associated with placing and taking down these massive structures is eliminated as well. Ultimately, we would conserve space and scenery, money, and energy. This is just one idea. There are many other ways of reducing energy consumption with little change to our daily lives.

We need to seriously consider what our goal is and pursue that goal earnestly. If our goal is to conserve energy, reduce the usage of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gasses, we should look more to saving energy rather than producing more to feed our habit. Investing in conservation has a much larger impact at a much lower cost when compared to the construction of wind turbines.

If, on the other hand, our goal is to eliminate a little guilt concerning our excessive energy usage and to boost the earnings of a few multinational corporations while we are at it, it looks to me that wind turbines are the best things going.

Alex Bittel
Lawrence, Kansas

Our Signs Vandalized

2007-06-28T10:40:00.000-05:00

You might expect that our local wind energy proponents, who own more than 10,000 acres, could afford to put up their own signs promoting their cause, rather than scrawling their messages across ours.

Irvin’s sign before:

Irvin’s sign after:

Jan Werth’s sign before:

Jan Werth’s sign after:

Not when turbines are placed next to towns and residences

2007-06-28T08:24:00.000-05:00

Submitted by Paul Faber, the following was also printed in the Hays Daily News, June 2007:

Once in a while you hear from an old student — sometimes second-hand — that you actually made some contribution to the student’s education. It’s most pleasant, of course, when the student seems to have actually understood what you were trying to teach and is finding it meaningful.

But it probably happens almost as often that the student will say something like, “I have always remembered when you taught us that the earth is flat,” or some other thing that you never in your wildest dreams tried to teach.

In fact, a few students studying logic sometimes seem to get the point just backward about fallacies. Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning. They look like logical arguments, but if you study them under the microscope you find there is a flaw in the reasoning.

We teach about fallacies so that people will avoid them in their own thinking and writing and speaking, or at least so we think. But every once in a while we run into someone who studies fallacies and thinks he ought to start using more of them.

The feeling that I’ve run into people who prefer to use fallacies has returned recently.

In the ongoing debate about the application for a conditional use permit for CPV Wind Hays, an application, that is, for legal permission to erect near Hays about 130 400-foot tall structures with wind turbines on top, a fallacy of relevance has popped.

Fallacies of relevance occur when someone puts forward some purported evidence for a position when that evidence is actually not relevant to the truth or falsity of the position. The evidence itself may very well be true, and it might even be emotionally appealing. But it just does not offer logical support for a position.

Here is an example of that sort of fallacy in an exaggerated form. Suppose that I claim that Mitt Romney will be our next president. When asked for my evidence I say, “Because coal is black.” It is true that coal is black, but it is just not connected to, not relevant to, the truth or the falsity of my prediction about Mr. Romney.

Here is an example of the fallacy that is a little less obvious. Suppose someone says that global warming seems to be happening and that therefore the county ought to grant CPV Wind Hays’ application to build the industrial wind complex near Hays.

Now global warming does seem to be happening. The evidence in the argument — the premise, as it is called — is true.

And there is a connection between global warming and the desirability of wind-generated electricity. Though I will not go into that whole connection, the mechanisms producing global warming are now well-known, even if known somewhat imperfectly, and the use of wind promises to be an alternative to some coal-fired power plants.

But that reasoning, even if we were to develop it in detail, shows at most (and even this is in dispute) that developing wind power is a good idea.

It does not show that this particular development of wind power is a good idea.

To say that global warming is happening and therefore we ought to build this particular wind project next to Hays is a fallacy.

It is like saying, “Open heart surgery is a good thing. Therefore you ought to have open heart surgery.” The “location” of the surgery — the person, his or her medical condition, and his or her need for the surgery — are crucial to the determination of whether or not this particular use of open heart surgery is something that ought to be done.

Similarly, using the wind to generate electricity is a good thing. But as is the case with heart surgery, the location is important.

Given the health and safety risks, the aesthetic considerations, and the unjust burdens it places on those who would reside near a turbine, the location is crucial.

Many of us support using the wind to generate electrical power, but we do not support putting them next to residential areas when there are better alternatives available.

Politicians from the eastern part of Kansas may state that the dying towns of western Kansas should be happy to host a minor level of economic development. And it may be rational for some people to accept the risks of industrial wind development to stave off the dying just as it is rational for some people to accept the risks of open heart surgery.

Wind power may be good.

But that does not prove that the CPV Wind Hays proposal to put those turbines next to Hays is a good idea. It’s not.

Submitted by Paul Faber
Hays, Kansas

Paul Faber has been teaching philosophy at Fort Hays State University for 20 years.

A Mere List of Names Does Not Constitute a Petition

2007-06-26T08:32:00.000-05:00

Submitted by J.P. Michaud:

In keeping with its continued sloppy coverage and biased reporting of the wind energy project, the Hays Daily News reported last Wednesday on the submission of a “petition” by supporters of the project. They need to buy Kaley Lyon a dictionary. From Webster’s unabridged: “Petition: A formally drawn request ... to a group of persons in authority ... soliciting some favor, right, mercy, or other benefit.”

Their list of names presented by Krista Gordon (in favor of building the industrial wind complex) cannot be considered a petition in any sense of the word as they are not signatories to any formal request addressed to anyone in authority. Theire prepaid, mail-in responses simply expressed general support for wind energy and the supposed “millions of dollars” it would bring to Ellis County.

This is a zoning issue dealing with the appropriateness of land use in a specific location (despite the apparent inability of zoning board members to grasp this charge).

In the Hays Daily News coverage of their "petition," there was no mention in the proponent’s letter of support regarding this project’s specific location beyond “Ellis County.” That could mean the 20 sections of land in the southwest corner of the county where almost nobody lives — and where I suspect there would be little opposition to siting the project.

Therefore, their list of names is completely irrelevant to the crux of the controversy: the siting of this project on top of 100 families that don’t want to live with it. Proponents have produced a list of supporters of wind energy in the most general of terms, not supporters of this project’s proposed location. Theirs is just one more cheap publicity stunt by Krista Gordon.

Contrast this to our citizen’s petition from our coalition we will be submitting soon. Ours was obtained largely by word-of-mouth, knocking on doors and other personal forms of contact. Ours has a clearly stated request addressed to the county commissioners — a moratorium on wind energy development within the county until an independent and unbiased assessment of all impacts can be performed. So vague is the statement of supporters that it is possible to agree with it and also agree that a moratorium is needed. In fact, a number of their signors subsequently signed our petition — without contradicting themselves in any way.

Closer examination of their list of “supporters” reveals many apartment numbers (most reflecting temporary student housing), apparent names of children, at least one deceased person, and even the name of one of our supporters who cannot understand how his name appeared on the list.

We doubt that more than a tiny fraction of people on their list would be willing to step forward and actively protest any decision to reject this project.

On the other hand, our list represents a large number of people who have already shown they are willing to commit considerable time and financial resources to defending this community against corporate exploitation and creating a sizable political backlash if this project is approved.

Submitted by:
J.P. Michaud
1189 180th Ave.
Hays, Kansas

Why it's not in the best interest of Ellis County, city of Hays, or local residents

2007-06-25T00:43:00.001-05:00

The following letter was published in the Hays Daily News, June 2007, submitted by Barbara-Jean Ottley, MD, a physician and resident in Hays, Kansas.

I feel as if our community has been kept in the dark about the 130-plus wind turbine facility to be located in Ellis County. I am a neurologist in the Hays community, a taxpayer and a voting constituent.

After doing a bit of research regarding wind turbines, I believe all of us residing in Ellis County need to be involved in making the decision of whether or not we should permit a wind turbine facility to be located 5 miles from the city of Hays. I am an advocate of wind and solar power. I believe wind power is an excellent manner in which to generate electricity.

But, I do not believe it is in the best interest of Ellis County and the city of Hays to have this facility within 5 miles of our community.

I especially do not believe it is safe for landowners to live within 1 to 2 miles of the wind turbines.

The literature available on the medical consequences related to “wind turbine syndrome” indicate there are numerous symptoms reported by inhabitants living in close proximity to the wind turbines. The long-term effects due to constant exposure to low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines is not fully and completely known. Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD from the John Hopkins University School of Medicine lists the symptoms from this syndrome as: chronic sleep disturbances, nausea, problems with concentration and learning, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), exhaustion, anxiety, irritability and depression.

In susceptible individuals, wind turbines have been noted to cause vertigo (sensation of spinning or turning), imbalance, motion sickness, nausea and triggering of seizures.

An international research group, the Vibroacoustic Disease Project centered in Portugal, has extensively published on the effects of low-frequency noise on the cardiovascular, pulmonary and neurologic systems. The ongoing research from the late 1980s describe Vibroacoustic Disease as including fibrosis (the laying down of fibrous thickening in the form of collagen) in the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems and seizures and cognitive changes in the brain caused long-term exposure to low frequency noise (less than 500 Hz), most of which cannot be heard. (Wind Turbine Syndrome by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Aug. 2006). Sound waves of certain wavelengths resonate inside the body, setting up vibrations to which the body responds by reinforcing its tissues with extra collagen, causing thickening of the pericardium (membrane around the heart) and cardiac valves, fibrosis of the lungs, and proliferation of the supporting (glial) cells in the brain.

How long will it take before the inhabitants of Ellis County experience these effects?

Is it correct that our three elected county commissioners will be given the responsibility of determining whether this facility will be located near the city of Hays? I have been informed that at least 100 homeowners will be living in close proximity to the wind turbines. How will we compensate them for any medically related events suffered by them from vibroacoustic disease and wind turbine syndrome?

I can only hope our county commissioners will vote responsibly and vote “no” on allowing a wind turbine facility to locate within a few thousand feet of homeowners, and a few miles from a populated city.

This is not a decision that should be made by a few. As a physician and a concerned citizen of the Hays community, I would like to ask our community be involved in making the decision of allowing an industrial wind turbine facility to locate within a few miles of our city.

Our Kansas Legislature should be required to set up a panel of experts to review the data and medical information available on wind turbine facilities. As a community, we need to request a moratorium be issued to allow time to study the safe issues, both medical and environmental, relating to wind turbine facilities.

Also, do we in Ellis County fully understand the other non-health related factors that might come about by close proximity to wind turbines? How will these structures affect cell towers, phone signals, Doppler radar, cardiac pacemakers, increased stray voltage, fire hazard, ice throwing from the blades, changes in our wildlife and environment, and lastly the property value of the homes located within a few miles of these structures?

As concerned citizens, I urge you to write to your representatives, senators and governor asking why no state or federal law has determined the safe distance in which to live next to a windpowered turbine.

It is our right and our duty to fully be informed before we allow a new industry the right to change the world in which we live.

The health and welfare of too many Ellis County inhabitants is at stake at this moment.

Are we willing to accept this risk?

Submitted by:
Barbara-Jean Ottley, MD
2740 Thunderbird Drive
Hays, KS 67601

An Open Letter to Patrick Lowry, Editor and Publisher of The Hays Daily News

2007-06-22T15:37:00.000-05:00

I am writing to express my disappointment in the HDN’s coverage of the industrial wind project. I am disappointed at many levels and will begin by questioning the wisdom of assigning a novice reporter to what is arguably the biggest story to come out of Ellis County in years. Ms. Lyon is a very decent person but seems to lack the experience or the chutzpah that a veteran reporter might need to investigate a story of this magnitude.

Secondly, I question what business the HDN has in endorsing a controversial industry moving into Ellis County. Aside from the belief that any government subsidized industry tends to distort the market, along with concerns about whether this project will even break even, how is it that the HND is willing to take a stand on either side? It appears to readers that it has affected the objectivity of your reporting. By making this endorsement early on in the debate, it has in a sense put you out on a limb. Some people have suggested to me that this breach of journalist ethics could be explained by your receiving some preferential consideration from CPV, such as a lucrative advertising contract. I have no idea whether this has occurred or not, but this scenario would perhaps explain this breach of journalistic ethics.

Finally, by ignoring the conflicts of interest in the development and implementation of zoning, you are doing a disservice to the community. I urge you to go to www.ellisco.net and study the Ellis County Adopted Zoning Regulations. There is repeated mention of a comprehensive plan, a plan which must be in place prior to inviting a half a billion dollar industry into Ellis County. We have no comprehensive plan! This is disturbing. Without a vision for the county, industry can be placed willy- nilly with nothing to stop it. Why has the HDN ignored this issue?

It is not too late for the HDN to begin investigating the problems with our zoning. This is the first big challenge we as a county have encountered since zoning was established. Though the task is unpleasant, the HDN could actually help the community not only now but in the future by uncovering the problems with our zoning.

Jacinta Faber

Citizens in Opposition to the Location of the Industrial Wind Complex Make History

2007-06-21T11:13:00.001-05:00

PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release, June 21, 2007
Contact: Jacinta Faber, Media Liaison, (785)-628-8817

Yesterday morning, Wednesday, June 20th, on the second floor of the Ellis County Court House, history was made:

Citizens brought in the first ever protest petition since the county's adoption of zoning regulations and procedures. The protest petition was submitted by the Ellis County Environmental Awareness Coalition, ECEAC, to Alberta Klaus, County Clerk.

The purpose of the protest petition is to allow citizens to express opposition to the land use application submitted by CPV Wind Hays for the construction of a wind project south and west of Prairie Acres.

The protest petition, as stated in the zoning regulations, is a tool for affected citizens living within 1000 ft. of the proposed land use area. It allows citizens a chance to influence land use decisions made by the county commissioners. The protest petition is successful if the land owners of at least 20% of the land area surrounding the project sign the petition.

The successful completion of this step means that if the county commissioners are to approve the wind project, the vote must be unanimous. At the time of submission, between 65% and 70% of the land area had been covered by the protest petition.

The petition was completed despite what ECEAC co-chair Tim Davis called "an injustice." According to the county zoning rules and regulations, a list of affected land owners was to have been submitted along with the land use application by CPV Wind Hays.

"The list,” according to the Procedural Guide, “must contain the names and mailing addresses of all the owners of property within the notification area. This list shall be obtained from an [sic] licensed abstractor."

But CPV Wind Hays provided no such list. Without this list of land owners, the ECEAC worked from the map of the proposed project published in the Hays Daily News on May 2 and finished the petition.

From the beginning, the ECEAC's purpose has not been debating the virtues of wind power or the effects of global warming. The opposition has been strictly about inappropriate usage of land in Ellis County.

Due to major irregularities in the zoning rules and regulations, and with no comprehensive plan in place for the placement of industry, the protest petition is an important tool the people of Ellis County have to protect themselves from ill-conceived land usage.

The Ellis County Commission meets each Monday in the Ellis County Courthouse and can consider the CPV Wind Hays application at its next meeting or a subsequent meeting.

Submitted by our Coalition's Media Liaison, Jacinta Faber

Corruption of Zoning in Ellis County

2007-06-17T10:20:00.000-05:00

Details of wind turbine easements, conflicts of interest, and chronology of events

With the help of others (especially Keith P.) I have been able to detail the corruption evident in the zoning process that led up to the conditional use application for a wind energy development here in Ellis County. In addition to the facts listed below, there have been multiple apparent errors of procedure, irregularities of process, and improper conduct on the part of zoning board members while they were supposedly acting in the interest of the general public, but these are probably best left for our legal council to address as most are legal technicalities of a rather tedious nature.

Wind Turbine Easements (according to data obtained in March, 2007)

These are the direct beneficiaries of the wind energy project, broken down as a percentage of the total turbines landholders with easements would have expected to receive at that time. Although a breakdown by property would be more detailed, we have compiled a breakdown by family to highlight the conflicts of interest on the zoning board. We have also included the York College easements in the those of the Kraus / Bemis extended family because this land was held by the Kraus family at the time of the project’s inception and subsequently inherited by York College.

Kraus / Bemis family 59 %
Gottschalk family 18 %
Stadlman family & trust 6 %
Johnson, N. 6 %
Befort family 4 %
Weilert family 4 %
Carrasco, C. 2 %

Conflicts of Interest

The primary conflict of interest arises from the key roles played by the zoning board chair and former co-chair, Lance Russell (step son to Harold Kraus) and Jo Kraus, in drafting the zoning regulations that facilitated wind energy development in Ellis County so as to directly benefit their extended family. These regulations contain more verbiage governing sign construction than governing a $500 million dollar industrial development covering 1100 acres. The same regulations limiting landholders to two and a half story buildings permits the construction industrial turbines 40 stories tall within 1000 feet of people’s homes – whether they object to them or not.

Jo Kraus, while serving on the zoning board, repeatedly represented the landholders with easements while petitioning support from the city commissions of Hays and Ellis. Lance Russell’s abstinence from voting on the board at this point does nothing to reduce his conflict of interest arising from his pivotal role in bringing this project to Ellis County.

In addition, it is illegal for paid public officials to serve on the zoning board. As chief of the Ellis County Fire Department, zoning board member Dick Klaus has a conflict of interest in that county public works, including the fire department, stand to benefit directly from the proposed payments to be made by Iberdrola.

Zoning board member Gene Bittel has publicly stated his desire to have turbines on his family's land north of I-70. A zoning decision to permit turbines in Ellis county would represent a direct benefit to his family in this regard, and yet another conflict of interest for this zoning board.

Given that these facts are all a matter of public record, it becomes quite clear that:

the zoning regulations were drafted to facilitate wind energy development in the county and
at least four members of the zoning board had apparent conflicts of interest and were therefore serving their own interests, or their families’ interests, rather than the interests of the residents of Ellis county.

Concerned residents need to ask themselves these questions:

How much of this land is owned by absentee landlords or will be ceded to out of town residents? (answer - quite a bit)
How much of the direct proceeds from this project will really be spent in Ellis County - now, or 5 years from now? (answer - very little)
How much future income will be lost to the county because of this project superseding other more profitable uses of this land? (answer - a lot)
Who is naive enough to believe that money paid to these leaseholders will somehow 'trickle down' to benefit the community of Hays?

Chronology of Events

2003

Sept. 15. Easement agreements were recorded at the county court house by landowners hoping to site turbines on their properties.
Oct. 10. An email was received by Hays City Commission from David Yearout, a member of the governor's task force for wind development in western Kansas, announcing Mr. Yearout's offer to make a presentation on county-wide zoning.
Oct. 24. An article in the Hays Daily News reports that a zoning consultant (David Yearout) had offered to help the county prepare for zoning.

2004

Feb. 2. Hays Daily News publishes an article on zoning and how it affects neighbors and their rights.
Feb. 28. David Yearout discussed countywide zoning at the County Commission meeting. Among those present was Lance Russell.
March 26. County Elections. Zoning becomes a campaign issue.
March 28. Hays Daily News: "Commission warms up to county zoning".

2005

March 28. David Yearout discussed county-wide zoning at the County Commission meeting. Lance Russell was among those present.
May 9. Resolution No. 2005-15 creates a planning commission and appoints Jo Kraus for one year and Lance Russell for three years.
May 23. First meeting of the Joint Planning Commission, Lance Russell chair, Jo Kraus co-chair. Mike Graf introduces David Yearout.
May 25. Jo Kraus represents landowners with signed easements at the Hays City Commission meeting.
August 9. The prospect of a wind farm west of Hays is first presented to the Ellis County Commission.
August 15. Hays Daily News reports that Fort Hays State University is looking into wind turbines to power the university.
August 19. Hays Daily News reports that the city wants details about wind turbines.
August 18. Meetings with Krista Gordan and interested parties were held at the house of Dana and Jo Kraus for discussion of the proposed development. Jo Kraus approaches city and county officials and informs them that she will "represent the landowners" with interest in the development.
August 21. Hays Daily News reports that Fort Hays State University is considering building a small wind farm. Disgen has been scouting the area and collecting wind data in Ellis County and applied to KCPL for a supply contract. Wind power quietly accumulating data about an area of Hays - "not so quiet anymore". Potential project would include 40-50 towers.
August 25. Hays Daily News reports that the city will consider support of a wind farm. Jo Kraus once again represents interested landholders at the City Commission meeting.
August 26. Hays Daily News reports the wind farm gets OK from the city.
August 29. High Plains Journal publishes article on the possibility of a wind farm west of Hays and quotes one landholder, Harold Kraus, who states that he has leased land for wind turbines and relates his dream of seeing all ridgelines in western Kansas covered with windmills and exporting power to more populous areas.
October 5. Hays Daily News reports that Disgen did not get the KCPL contract.
October 10. Hays Daily News reports "Wind farm won't happen".
October 21. Hays Daily News reports that Kansas needs rules for wind farm developments.

2006

June 6. Hays Daily News reports that the public in Ellis County "does not want zoning".
June 28. Joint Planning Commission votes to approve zoning 5 -2, despite overwhelming opposition expressed by the public in attendance.
June 30. The terms of Jo Kraus and Gene Bittel expire, Gene Bittel is reappointed, Jo Kraus is not.

2007

A full chronology of Hays Daily News articles on the wind energy project can be found here: http://www.hdnews.net/windfarm/windfarm07.shtml

March 10. Leo Dorzweiler resigns as County Commissioner citing "unscrupulous tactics" in the zoning of Ellis County and a "dictatorship approach".
May 18. An article in the Hays Daily News is particularly informative regarding conflicts of interest and states that “Wind-specific regulations originally were drafted by the Ellis County Public Works Department, the county counselor and Distributed Generation Systems, said Public Works Administrator Mike Graf.” This would seem akin to asking the fox to help design your chicken coup. The same article reports that the motion to adopt the regulations was made by Jo Kraus, who vehemently denied any ‘pro-wind’ motivation. Right.
May 23. Dana Kraus, husband of Jo Kraus, publicly states his involvement in collecting wind data from anemometer towers, rendering him in effect an employee of Disgen/CPV and creating yet another conflict of interest for his wife as a zoning board member.
June 6. Ellis County Zoning board votes 6-1 to support the conditional use permit.
June 11. Hays Daily News announces the formation of the Ellis County Supporters of Wind that claims more than 1300 members based on a returns of a pre-paid mailer sent to a list of Ellis County registered voters numbering more than 17,000. We have obtained this list of supporters, but no information is provided regarding the number of returned ballots that contained negative as opposed to positive responses (our group mailed back quite a few). Furthermore, perusal of the list reveals many apparent names of underage children and college students who are only temporary residents of Ellis County. Given the goal of the ECSW is to ‘educate’ residents about the supposed benefits of this project, one is left wondering why the group was formed scant weeks before a decision is to be made by the County Commission.

The apathy of the local community on this immensely important subject appears absolutely abysmal. Using 2006 census data from the US Census Bureau for number of people over the age of 18 residing in Ellis County, and summing the proponents response with signatures obtained on our own citizen’s petition, it would seem that less than 9 % of adults in the county have registered an opinion one way or the other. Given the proponents share is roughly half of this amount, ‘immense popularity’ for the project, as claimed by Krista Gordon, would seem a gross exaggeration.

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!

We Are Saddened by the Zoning Board

2007-06-16T14:07:00.000-05:00

The following letter from Rod & Pat Bittel was printed in the Hays Daily News, June 2007:

After witnessing the zoning commission June 6 during the “deliberations” of the conditional-use permit for the industrial wind complex, we were saddened to learn that the majority of this zoning board doesn’t believe that zoning is for everyone.

With the almost complete lack of discussion about the proposal and its effects on residents living in the area, the focus on this hearing was instead about the zoning board’s belief in property rights, wind energy and bringing money into the county. One member took the opportunity to punish those who were opposed to zoning last year.

He stated, “I’m a property-rights advocate, and that is part of why I voted no for zoning last year.” Another elaborated his yes vote by saying, “It seems like the people next to this project feel like they have a right to the land adjacent to them and I guess that disturbs me.” That would be fine, except these towers also will affect the people on the adjacent property.

Evidently, Gene Bittel hasn’t done enough research to know that the flicker, noise and electromagnetic fields will not be contained just to those properties receiving compensation.

One member voted in favor of the project because his high school science teacher said wind and solar was the energy of the future. And yet another even seemed confused about his role on the board and stated his opposition to the location of the complex as he voted for it.

In Monday’s paper, Krista Gordon of CPV/Iberdrola said, “I sincerely appreciate the vision and common sense of the public servants who have supported this project.”

How can these comments ever be considered vision and common sense?

With their decision, the Ellis County Zoning Board has now said that development takes precedence over quality of life and pretty much everything else. Although the stated purpose of our zoning regulations is to “promote the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the citizens of Ellis County,” that apparently only applies when there is no money involved.

Your neighbor’s right to make money however they wish on their own property has more value then your right to live comfortably and safely in your own home.

Rather than considering the rights of the hundreds of Ellis County citizens who live and own property in this area, the rights of 20 individuals and businesses who own the land, (some who don’t even live in Kansas!) and a foreign energy company who stand to make millions of dollars were considered to have greater value than those who are raising their families in Ellis County.

If this project is to be considered for Ellis County, it should be built where it won’t negatively affect people.

Bittel stated, “If we say no to this opportunity, we’re going to say no to every development that comes to this county from now on. We just as well lock the doors so nobody will open them. And you can’t have future growth with that mindset.”

This statement and attitude effectively served notice to all residents of Ellis County. The invitation now has been issued to any industry looking for a home: feedlots, meat-processing plants, hog-confinement barns, smelter plants, adult entertainment clubs and automobile salvage yards on every corner.

Sorry, Victoria, we realize some might think it conflicts with the community image and the Cathedral of the Plains, but “The Porn Shack,” the 24-hour adult superstore soon to be proposed for the north side of the interstate, will bring money into the county. Expect a “yes” vote from your current Ellis County Zoning Board if this hypothetical should ever really occur.

Rod and Pat Bittel
1101 Noose Road
Hays, Kansas

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!

Carrying out the trash

2007-06-15T23:59:00.000-05:00

Humans, of course, typically live in groups. Economic and social cooperation produce benefits—such as greater wealth--and they produce burdens, which would include things such as the risk to one’s life that may be necessary to defend that increased wealth.

One of the perennial questions of human living is just how we distribute these benefits and burdens fairly. Even in a relatively small social group, such as a family, there are questions like who has to clean the bathroom and who has to carry out the trash. These are burdens of living together.

All of us know that there is no free lunch, that there is always some cost to pay or burden to bear to bring about the benefits that we desire. So fairness demands that we try to distribute the burdens in some morally acceptable way. Fairness requires that either everybody bears the burdens to about the same degree or that there is a proportionality between the benefits one receives and the burdens one has to bear.

The military draft during the War in Vietnam, for example, was criticized because of its unfairness in terms of benefits and burdens. The benefits of the hoped-for military success were seen as going to corporate America, while the burdens—the fighting, the miserable conditions, and the considerable risk of injury and death—fell disproportionately upon the urban and rural poor, those who could not afford to go to college and thereby receive a 2S deferment or whose family did not have the pull to get one placed in a National Guard unit.

Because of that unfair distribution of burdens we moved first to a lottery and then to a volunteer military. Now the burdens fall only on those who choose to take them on. This is based on a widespread moral belief that if one takes on a burden freely and voluntarily, then carrying that burden is not an injustice.

Right now in Ellis County we are facing another version of the question about who carries out the trash. If wind turbines are built, mounted on 400-foot towers, and tied into the electric power grid, it will be because of a massive amount of social cooperation.

And there may be benefits of this cooperation. First and foremost, there will be more electricity to be sent through the grid to power air conditioners and personal computers and a host of other things. This would benefit all of us, although the share for any one of us will be small.

Reportedly there will also be financial benefits to those on whose land the wind turbines and towers will be placed, and there will be other financial benefits—tax subsidies and profits—to the Spanish company that will own the project.

Just as there are benefits, there are burdens of this social enterprise. The noise and inaudible vibrations (sometimes called “infrasonic noise” or “low frequency noise”) pose considerable health risks, and there is some danger from lightning strikes and high winds. These are the health and safety burdens.

Many people, though not all, regard the placement of metallic machinery in otherwise pastoral and agricultural areas as ugly. A second burden, then, is the aesthetic.

Probably because of the health, safety, and aesthetic concerns, people typically do not like to live near turbines. And, of course, when fewer people want to buy a piece of property, the value of that property in a free-market economy goes down. So another burden is the decline of property values.

But notice that there is a difference between the way the benefits get spread around and the way the burdens do. The electricity, which is the benefit, becomes available, basically, to everybody on the grid, which is just about everybody. The lease payments go to some landowners. And then the profits go to Iberdrola, the Spanish company building the project, and to whoever its owners may be.

The burdens, however, fall on those who live quite near the wind turbines. The health and safety risks decline with distance until they are can really be safely ignored if the turbines are two or more miles from one’s residence.

The aesthetic burdens stretch a little further, though they are less intense to begin with. Turbines 400 feet above the high plains grasslands will be easily visible five miles away. In fact, the Spearville turbines are visible in Dodge City, 17 miles away, but at that distance they are pretty small on the horizon.

The decline in property values will depend, of course, on the use of the property and on the features of a piece of property that make it attractive to people. Some property is valued because of, for example, its ability to supply grass for cattle, while other property—residential property—is valued for its healthfulness, safety, and aesthetic attractiveness. The property value of lands leased for power generation will probably go up a bit, the value of grasslands or agricultural lands will probably not be affected, and the value will decline for property whose selling points include peace and quiet and the safety of country living.

The burdens of this wind turbine project, then, do not fall equally upon all members of society, nor do they fall in rough proportion as the benefits upon those who do stand to gain from the project.

Furthermore, those upon whom the burdens fall are not an all-volunteer army. No one who built or bought residential property in the area west of Hays had any idea that they were possibly taking on the burden of health and safety risks and so on.

Thus, this project is unfair. If the project is built as it is presently proposed, the non-leasing people who live near the project will bear the greatest share of the burdens without sharing in the benefits in a similar proportion.

Fortunately, there are a couple of remedies possible. The industrial wind project could be moved farther south and west so that it does not lay the burdens on the unfortunate families who would bear the burden of living right near the currently planned turbines. And then those who would still live near re-sited turbines could be fairly compensated by having their property purchased at market value. Then if there are people who buy that property and choose to live near the turbines, they would be accepting the burdens voluntarily.

Somebody has to take out the trash, and fairness requires that it be those who benefit most in the first place or those who freely choose to carry it out.

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!

Fuzzy Logic of the Zoning Commission

2007-06-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

Many were in attendance for the zoning commission meeting Wednesday night. The vote went off as expected, with the commission approving the conditional use permit for Iberdrola to place turbines at will in the project area.

The big surprise was the impoverished arguments provided by the commissioners in favor of this project. Let me give you some examples.

Gene Bittel, an ardent supporter of the turbines and a self-appointed representative of the western half of Ellis County, referred to those of us in opposition as being anti-progress. "This project will make hundreds of millions of dollars for Ellis County." After the meeting, I asked him how he came up with these figures. He said he did the math, and it is the people with turbines on their property who will be flooding money into our economy.

I pointed out that half the land owners do not live in Ellis County. He then said that our conversation should cease. Before he cut me off completely, I told him about our safely concerns. The new towers Krista Jo spoke of in Sunday's paper would be even larger than those that had previously been planned. According to the literature, these particular towers can only withstand 137 mph winds.

What if a tornado should show up again in Yocemento with these monster towers near people's homes? Not to worry according to Gene Gene The Wind Machine. If 137 mph winds should occur, our house on the prairie will be blown apart anyway. It was then that I had to agree that our conversation was over. By the way, city of Ellis pay heed, I see turbines in Mr. Bittel's future.

Next example, Barb Anderson asked Dick Klaus how the Ellis County Rural Fire Department would handle a fire 400 feet in the air (referring to turbines catching on fire due to lightning strikes). What would you do? Dick responded [and I am not making this up], "Nothing."� His reasoning is that there is just an electrical wire up there; if a fire should occur, it will simply burn itself out. We will sleep better tonight knowing that we are protected.

Yet another example of the fuzzy logic presented by the commission was the scolding the opposition received from Charlie Rohr. He excoriated us for fighting against zoning in Ellis County. This is simply not true.

I welcomed zoning to Ellis County. It was supposedly established for the protection, safety and well-being of the citizens of Ellis County. Now I find out differently. The regulations written for the wind project were written in a way to favor commercial interest and not for the citizen's protection, safety or well- being. Now who should be scolded?

The final example was when one of the commissioners recalled his eighth grade science teacher's prescient thoughts concerning the role of sun and wind to help meet our energy needs.

Too bad he was not also taught about proper setbacks for turbines, sound travel, property devaluation for homes near turbines, and honesty in establishing industry in Ellis County.

Submitted by Ellis Co. Resident:

Jacinta Faber
Hays, Kansas

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign...

2007-06-11T15:06:00.000-05:00

My goal here is to utilize all strategic property locations throughout the project area to post signs publicly denouncing the project shaming the zoning board (these latter to go up this week). Not sure why I lost so much quality resizing the last four.

Since we happen to own land directly facing the house of our zoning board chair, we thought he might like a sign of his own….

Commissioners Overstep (or Misunderstand) Their Roles?

2007-06-07T11:36:00.000-05:00

In Wednesday's zoning commission meeting, it seems that some of the members of the zoning commission may have not understood the purpose of their roles on the zoning commission.

Theirs is not an "energy" commission - nor is it a "determine the direction of renewable resources in general terms" commission. Their is a ZONING commission.

The work of a zoning commission should be all about LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

One commissioner, Gene Jacobs, who voted FOR THE LOCATION of the proposed wind farm, may not have thought the location was the right location for a wind farm. But, he voted for it anyway. Huh?

“I strongly feel that this is the right direction,” Jacobs said, “It might not be the right place, but it’s the right direction.”

What? Mr. Jacobs, your job on the zoning commission is not to decide the "right directions" for renewable energy. You are not a member of an energy think tank.

Your job was to evaluate the use of a particular place. Place, not direction. Place!

We can only pray that our elected county commissioners DO UNDERSTAND what their roles are and WHO THEY REPRESENT.

Submitted by Pam Pohly

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!

Put yourself in our shoes. Would you want protection to keep it from happening to you?

2007-06-07T01:55:00.000-05:00

The following was submitted by Sheryl Butler to the Hays Daily News in June 2007

Wow, what a mess this wind controversy has become. Two and a half months ago, we were starting to concentrate our efforts on remodeling our home. Now, I’m not sure if we are even going to stay in it.

There seems to be some question as to whether or not property sales would be effected.

That’s right — property sales not property values. The property values term is used by industrial wind companies to try to convince everyone that the home values won’t be affected.

The tax value of our homes in this effected area, I’m sure, will remain the same. An appraised value will probably not change much because, as most people are aware, appraisals focus on square footage, the age of the home, general condition, number of bedrooms, baths, etc. and then the appraiser does a “comp” analysis on similar properties that have been sold in the county.

What will change, if this complex is allowed to come in, is the “sale-ability” of our properties.

For example, the appraisals that we had done on our property, did not include the very nice Wick horse barn that we have, that when originally built cost $38,000 in and of itself. The barn has eight stalls, wash rack, tack room, cement center aisle, etc. We were told that outbuildings, including barns, did not add value to the appraised value of the property but would add to the sale-ability of our property. In other words, the barn did not add to the price tag on an appraisal but would be a selling point of the property.

The same would hold true true for the negative effect of having a home within a quarter-mile of a 139-plus wind turbine complex. The appraised value would continue to focus on square footage, age of the home, etc.

But when putting the property on the market — the potential buyer pool would be limited — thereby reducing the “value” of the property. The wind complex also provides potential buyers of properties in the affected area, a bargaining chip to reduce the sale price.

It seems that when it comes to property in the country — property rights and infringement does not exist.

For example, for those of you in town, imagine that you were living in your dream home in Hays, Ellis, Victoria, etc. with the neighborhood views and common neighborhood sounds that were there when you purchased the home.

Now imagine that your neighbor is approached by a convenience store chain to purchase his property, which is started, unknown to you, and about 20 days prior to the zoning meeting, you are made aware of the situation. The convenience store is thought to be in a perfect place for people to by gas, snacks, drinks, etc. in spite of the inconvenience that it causes those living around it such as parking lot lighting, increased traffic and people, noise, etc. Yet it is the perfect location for this store.

Next, imagine that in addition to dealing with the frustration of the idea of living next to a convenient store, those out in the country or in other parts of town are wondering what your problem is. After all, the area could use a convenient store in this location. Some people, across town or out in the country even think you are selfish and as being jealous of the neighbor who made money off of his property. Some people will even tell you that they would love living next to this convenient store and don’t see what your problem is. Now, do you see what we “country bumpkins” are dealing with?

It is the same concept out here in the country — we just have bigger yards and the stores are about 400 feet tall and spin.

Please try to put yourself in our shoes and ask yourself if you would want protection from this happening to you.

Submitted by Ellis County Resident:

Sheryl R. Butler
779 Golf Course Road
Hays, Kansas 67601

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to prevent this wind farm from being constructed next to Hays, Kansas, you can follow this link and leave your name, real address, and a single comment about your support of this petition. Click here now!