ECEAC Addresses Ellis County Commissioners Regarding Zoning Irregularities

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

Crystals and turbines

The following actually comes from Jacinta Faber. (It just happened to be easier to use Paul Faber info to log in.)

After reading the article “Where the wind blows” in Friday’s HDN, it would seem that the good people of Spearville have had nary an ache nor a pain since the turbines went up in their area. The heading of the article could easily have been “The Magical Healing Powers of Turbines.” First we had crystals, now we have turbines. Of course, sensible people would agree that turbines cannot make us healthy, but we do know they can make us sick.

I am happy for Mr. Hill that he is living well with turbines around him. Others have not faired as well. A point we should consider in studying any type of health issue is the idea that there are differences in people’s susceptibility to illness. My Grandma Giebler ate a diet high in animal fat all her life. She lived to 95 years. My Grandpa Giebler ate a similar diet and died of a massive heart attack at the age of 62. Some people smoke for years and do not develop lung cancer and others do. A recently acknowledged risk factor for some undergoing chemotherapy is memory loss. The loose term given to this condition is called “chemo-brain.” Again, some present this symptom: others do not.

“Wind Turbine Syndrome” is a cluster of symptoms which start when local turbines go into operation and resolve when the turbines are off—which they are some of the time depending upon the strength of the wind—or if the person physically removes himself from the area. These symptoms include: headaches, dizziness, unsteadiness, nausea, sleep disturbances due to the sensations of pulsation or pressure, and problems concentrating. Of course not all people develop the symptoms, but some do.

What is disturbing me now, besides the real possibility that my family and neighbors will be exposed to this potential danger, is the lack of interest the HDN is taking in our plight. So far coverage has been heavy on CPV Hays Wind and light on citizen’s concerns. Yes, they publish our letters in which we are allowed to plead our case, but we need more exposure. Ellis County deserves fair and balanced coverage of this very important issue that will affect the entire county. One way HDN could make up for this act of omission is to interview people who are experiencing the negative side effects of having wind turbines close to their homes. There are plenty of examples. The reporting staff may want to contact Wendy Todd, a resident of Mars Hill, Maine, who has suffered enough that she was given time to testify in front the Maine State Legislature. Another way would be to talk with Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician who has no ties to the oil, gas, coal, or wind industry. Dr. Pierpont has been tireless in her efforts to protect citizens from the real health problems stemming from turbines close to homes. I know she would love to visit.

When it comes to my family’s health who should I believe, Krista Jo Gordon, an electrical engineer and a wind farm sales person, or Nina Pierpont, a graduate from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who also holds a PhD in Population Biology from Princeton University?

If I can not find a crystal, could somebody please hand me a turbine?

Jacinta Faber

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to stop 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!

Wind energy headline doesn't cut to real chase

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

Airing our dirty laundry

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

An Open Letter to Mr. Patrick Lowry

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

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

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

Citizens in Opposition to the Location of the Industrial Wind Complex Make History

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

Moral Imagination

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 Farm Worries Have Large Personal Impacts

(Submitted to Hays Daily May 7, 2007 by J.P. Michaud)

By now, my name is probably recognizable to many in town as one of the more outspoken opponents of the wind energy development in Hays. I belong to all three of the groups described by Paul Faber in his editorial: I feel the siting of this project is entirely inappropriate, I have little faith in the ability of wind power to make any meaningful contribution to renewable energy, and I am outraged by the devious and undemocratic process by which this project has been foisted on unsuspecting citizens.

I have researched extensively the dangers of industrial wind energy, helped establish our website, and organized our community presentation on May 2. But all this has not been accomplished without tremendous personal cost; financial, professional, psychological and medical, and I am sure the same can be said for many others in our group.

If you have the read the letters submitted to the Hays Daily by Jeannie Riedel, Sheryl Butler, Jacinta Faber, Tim Davis, Gary Hammersmith (below) and others, you already have some insight into the personal impact this project is having on people’s lives – and its construction hasn’t even begun. So this time I want to speak to the personal impact on my family and on our whole outlook on our future here in Hays.

We are here because almost 5 years ago I accepted a position at K-State University to serve as a research and extension entomologist at the Agricultural Research Center in Hays. It was a chance to end my life as an ‘academic gypsy’ – still floating between temporary research positions at the age of 44 – and purchase a house with the knowledge I had a permanent job and could finally settle down. I was also enthusiastic about the challenge of supporting sustainable agriculture in western Kansas and researching better ways for local farmers to protect their crops. Like others in our group, I was also adamant about finding a country homestead for the peace, quiet and privacy of rural living. The old Kinderknect property was the only one that fit the bill – I knew it would need some work, but the location was perfect. I bought it sight unseen. Now, after four years of weekend work and an additional investment of $100,000, we have a small, but fully renovated farmhouse that meets all our needs – in exactly the right setting for us and our animals. The dream was almost a reality.

Now, my home office now looks like the command post of a military operation – cluttered with maps, bulky government reports, stickies with names and phone numbers stuck to every surface.

My wife and I share research findings until all hours of the night, squabble for time on the internet, argue incessantly about opposition strategy, sleep irregular hours, and hardly seem to taste our food when we get around to eating. It was 5 days past our wedding anniversary before we realized we had BOTH forgotten it this year.

My phone rings a lot more than it used to and many new friends and acquaintances are welcomed into our house at all hours of the day and night, often without a moments notice. We used to go weeks and months without a single visitor.

Now I am the first to admit that I am a rather nervous person by nature and probably suffer higher than normal stress levels under average circumstances, mostly work-related and self-inflicted. But as the true dimensions of our impending doom became clear to me back in March, every other endeavor in our lives, personal and professional, became inconsequential by comparison.

I have had to take time off work, abandon my workout schedule, delay manuscript submissions, turn down requests for academic services I normally provide for free, find a physician, seek legal counsel, and liquidate substantial assets in preparation for an extended legal battle.

I have lost 14 pounds in the past month, my resting heart rate has increased by 20 bpm, and I have been prescribed medication to reduce hypertension. Just waking up in the morning every day brings an immediate surge of anxiety that jolts me back to reality – everything we have worked for is now at risk thanks to the selfish greed of a few rich families who somehow feel entitled to increase their wealth even further at the expense of their neighbors’ investments, peace of mind, and quality of life.

So now the future holds many new questions for my wife and I, questions we cannot yet answer.

1. Can we continue to effectively serve agriculture in this county when local agricultural representatives are among those farmers out to prostitute their land for this project that, in our view, constitutes a blatant assault on its agricultural integrity?
2. Can I find the motivation for that job any longer?
3. Do we want to continue living next to neighbors we can no longer trust?
4. Should we both just quit our jobs and sell up and leave for the sake of our health and our marriage?
5. We are now in week seven of the war. How much longer can we physically maintain the exorbitant amount of time and effort necessary to mount organized opposition against these forces of greed and corporate opportunism threatening our community?

Maybe our lives will go never back to what they were when we lived in peace and blissful ignorance of the cloud of evil gathering around us, but at least we have met a lot of other neighbors that we can trust. Neighbors we wish we had met five years ago. And that might be just enough reason to hang around for a while longer.

J.P. Michaud

To Sign the Petition:
If you are an Ellis County, Kansas, resident and you wish to support a petition to stop 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!

Conflict of Interest, Oath of Office, and Comprehensive Plan

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.

An Open Letter to Patrick Lowry, Editor and Publisher of The Hays Daily News

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

Fuzzy Logic of the Zoning Commission

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!

Call to Action: Get Involved!

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:

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

More Zoning Irregularities

(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

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