Public opinion shifts on wind ordinance, while BOS stands firm

WASHINGTON - In a seemingly unending back-and-forth among community members, a public hearing Monday night saw several speakers voice their opposition to a Washington County ordinance that would effectively ban commercial wind energy development there.

The last several months saw few, if any, public comments in favor of commercial wind turbines when previous ordinance proposals were discussed. A public hearing in November drew so much criticism of the technology that supervisors opted to extend a previously half-mile setback requirement for the generators to a full mile, a revision that prompted Monday night’s new public hearing.

That adjustment seemed to spark previously silent complaints, however. Opponents to the latest ordinance draft came out of the woodwork to criticize on Dec. 9.

“I have a problem with any ordinance that is slanted one way or the other, it should be neutral,” said Richard Gilmore, a Washington resident. “This should not be an ordinance to stop something, this needs to be an ordinance that provides the best for Washington. Not for the windmill people, and not for the non-windmill people.”

The critiques didn’t all land on the same side of the political spectrum. While some of Monday night’s speakers spoke of climate change, emission reduction and tax revenue, Joel Huber likened the proposed local law to zoning codes, which the county abolished in 2013 in a vote involving many of the current supervisors.

While Huber said he opposed tax breaks and subsidies for renewable energy initiatives, he argued that issue was out of the county’s hands and didn’t justify such harsh restrictions on development. He instead urged the local government to “play the hand we’re dealt.”

“If you’re going to ban the windmills, have the guts to do it,” he said. “If you’re going to continue to act like this, could you please join the party of hypocrisy and go be a Democrat? ... Otherwise, stick to your values. You said no zoning. Let’s stick to no zoning, or make it right.”

Huber, along with other public comment makers, said deals with turbine-building companies could offer a major financial opportunity to struggling farmers. He said he was frustrated that county residents wouldn’t have a chance to consider their options under the proposed ordinance.

Prospective wind developers last year started probing Washington County for possible locations, offering tentative lease agreements to landowners in the rural area. The exact price point of those leases was not publicly shared, but any dollar amount would mean some level of consistent revenue for farmers whose profession comes with countless uncontrolled risks every year.

“I don’t have a chance to talk to the guy; Is he ripping me off? Is it a good deal? Is it a bad deal?” Huber said. “Most farmers are pretty smart. I think you all are aware that we lost a major hog business in this county, the hog business has been horrible these last two years ... the grain markets are crap now. These windmills could be a great way to stabilize some constant income for farmers. We don’t have that.”

  Buy Photo

Supervisors and some supporters of the ordinance argue it doesn’t technically ban development.

Even within the mile setback from occupied structures, the restriction is waivable under the current proposal as long as turbines are separated from the nearest property line by a distance twice as far as the generator is tall, although that limit could also be waived by landowners with some extra paperwork.

That said, turbines have yet to see construction in any Iowa county with a setback of over a mile. Representatives from Deriva Energy said earlier this year that, even with waivers, the limit would create too much uncertainty to justify investment. On the flip side, some anti-wind advocates have endorsed the current ordinance specifically because they see it as a functional ban.

Additionally, the proposed county code wouldn’t bar farmers from investing in their own smaller, personal turbines. Language in the current version says it only applies to systems with a “generating nameplate capacity of 100 kW or greater.”

Monday night’s meeting saw a handful of opponents to wind energy speak their piece, including some of the same individuals who have railed against wind energy in recent weeks.

They argued mostly that the technology was unreasonably subsidized, disrupted the landscape with cement foundations and structures on the rural skyline, and posed a major hazard if damaged due to the fiberglass and lubricant oil inside the machines. A few mentioned risks to wildlife, citing other areas where the turbines correlated with a drop in nearby eagle and bat populations.

Most also mentioned Iowa’s handful of counties with moratoriums on wind energy, a list of at least nine local governments, including Muscatine and Henry counties earlier this year. They argued that those communities should serve as a warning to local decision-makers.

“There’s (several) counties in the state of Iowa that have a moratorium,” said Marlin Bontrager, who also spoke at the previous ordinance draft’s public hearing. “I run into a lot of people that wish there’d never been any turbines in their county ... and I’d love to see not a single turbine in Washington County.”

The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve a first reading of the proposed ordinance at their weekly meeting the following Tuesday morning.

The policy requires three such readings at separate meetings to become law, although state code allows supervisors to waive the third if they see fit.

Elected officials gave no indication they’d change course in light of the recent pro-wind comments, and said they remained convinced that most of the public favored the heavier restriction. Some, including supervisors Marcus Fedler and Bob Yoder, have openly expressed their own personal opposition to the generators.

Supervisor Stan Stoops acknowledged the dissent heard at Monday night’s hearing, but claimed Tuesday morning that those advocates misunderstood the facts.

“Those who were for the wind farm were basically uninformed,” he said. “I could find holes in what they were saying, because of what I knew.”

The officials have also argued that a waivable one-mile setback from inhabited structures is fair, despite radically exceeding industry standards.

Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said cited parts of the code that protect federal, state and other public property, as well as any municipal boundaries, with a mile-long setback. That specific limitation never drew complaints from prospective developers in discussion on any of the ordinance’s earlier drafts.

“I questioned why public land and cities were given more consideration than private citizens,” Seward said. “I have yet to come across a convincing argument in support of the lesser separation for a citizen ... if the people most affected are not willing to waive that separation distance, then it’s a pretty clear sign that the majority of Washington County doesn’t want a wind farm in the county.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com