Wilno Wind Power Coalition

President of SOS Renfrew County addresses GEA

2009-04-17T15:05:00.000-04:00

SOS Presentation to The Standing Committee on Bill 150

The following is Lou Eyamie’s presentation on April 16/09 to the Standing Committee on the Green Energy Act Bill 150.

"Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Ladies & Gentlemen,

My name is Lou Eyamie and I am here today speaking on behalf of SOS ( Save Our Skyline) and on behalf of my wife and myself.

Since 2000 my wife & I have been working hard on the farm we bought to restore it to its former beauty. Our hopes and dreams have been to create a place where we could both retire. We have been working hard to create a home that respects the environment, a place to live in a community in peace & harmony with our neighbours; a place to live simply, grow our own chickens & turkeys and raise horses. We wanted to be a part of a community that my wife had grown up in and loved.

Before we bought the farm it was a booby-trapped, garbage strewn marijuana grow operation. Our work has always focused on restoring the land, rebuilding the heritage of the farm and joining our neighbours in making our neighbourhood one of the things that makes Wilno and the Madawaska Valley so beautiful.

SOS is a local organization. Our membership represents a group of people who live in the Valley who are as concerned as we are about industrial wind turbines. As a member of SOS, I can assure you that I and my neighbours are not speaking out to save a view, but rather to ensure that the industrial wind turbines proposed in our area do not harm the environment, do not increase risks to threatened species and pose no risk or health threat to the people and animals that live near proposed sites.

How do we make our voice heard and bring you to understand the fears and concerns we have? I feel like a small voice in the shadow of large organizations and businesses that have aligned themselves with this government and have even become your advisors and key resources.

But let me share a little more of our history:

Because my wife and I travelled so much after purchasing our retirement property, we often had the chance to see turbine parts being transported along the highways, carried by oversized transports that needed escort, carrying parts of towers and blades that were amazingly large. We thought that this was pretty cool. When word came that SkyPower was proposing building a wind farm down the road from our home we were interested- this was our chance to learn more about something that had always intrigued us. So we went to their open house.

We came out…. very disillusioned.

We asked questions and were given the run around.

We filled out comment sheets and heard no response.

When we asked specific questions we were told that there were no answers. The only people present were promoters for SkyPower.

As a result, on our own, we started digging a little deeper and doing our own research.

What we found made us angry …and afraid.

SkyPower obviously was not telling the whole truth.

Since then we have been working hard with our local elected officials, neighbours and businesses to learn as much as we could and to ensure that our communities have been informed of the risks of industrial wind turbines. We have shared our research through numerous public meetings and encouraged our neighbours, the citizens of Renfrew County, to make sure that their concerns were known to their councils. Our primary objective? To ensure that the siting of these proposed towers would not negatively impact our health, our environment, our economy, our rich cultural heritage and history, and our property values.

Our independent research has told us:

Turbines do not produce when demand is highest

Turbines operate at only 30% efficiency at best

The inefficiencies do not address the cost risks including government subsidies that attract potentially unethical business

Current recommended setbacks from dwellings is 1.5km to 2km – nowhere near the provincial average

Health impacts are real and the symptoms people are experiencing are consistent world wide

Environmental impact studies to date are inadequate and biased - there have been 17 requests for more thorough EAs and 17 have been denied.

If this government is so adamant that industrial wind power is safe why have they not granted 1 EA? Why are you so reluctant to reassure your voting public that there is NO risk or impact to the environment?

Now we are dealing with the Green Energy Act.

This Act is being pushed through without allowing full public consultation.

This is legislation that takes away basic democratic rights of citizens to participate in decision making and to be protected from the negative side effects that are already well documented but being ignored.

Just because your Act says it is green, just because wind turbine companies say wind is green, does not mean that they are.

We should not abandon all principals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and ensuring that this technology does not harm the people you are entrusted to protect.

Our concerns about this Act and this process relate to areas such as:

The majority of the people & industries with time slots to speak at these meetings appear to be pro-wind.

Private citizens such as Barbara Ashbee, who continues to struggle with health issues as a direct result of the industrial wind turbine installations next to her home, have been denied presentation time.

Other individuals who have publicly voiced their concerns regarding industrial wind turbines have been told that they would need to travel to Sault Ste Marie. For some this is a 7 hour drive to speak to you for 10 minutes. This effectively silences many who oppose aspects of the Green Energy Act

The removal of perceived barriers, as proposed in this Act, actually removes and eliminates the rights of the voting public to have a say through their municipal councils as to the development and planning within their own communities.

Even as your government has accused us of NIMBYism, your Green Energy Act reflects a direct conflict of interest.

The alliances and partisanship that exists between organizations that are connected to this government and to wind companies are clearly self-serving affiliations. These include CanWEA, OSEA and others.

CanWEA is a lobby group whose web site states that they are the “voice of the wind energy industry.” Like any other business, wind industry is enthusiastic about government subsidies and quick profits.

CanWEA membership represents foreign as well as domestic companies.

They produce all of the literature that supports private industrial wind turbine projects.

Their information brochures make no mention of the negative health impacts being experienced by people right here in Ontario and do not address the true cost and inefficiency of wind power. CanWEA states that 300 – 600m is a suitable setback. Worldwide recommendations are 1.5 – 2 km. CanWEA’s literature and research is clearly biased.
CanWEA is acting as a government advisor.

Hermann Scheer, is revered and respected by Energy Minister George Smitherman, but Mr. Scheer does not address the issues of setbacks, environment, and health in his speeches. He has not publicly stated that in Germany nor anywhere else in the world has one coal or gas fired energy plant been closed with the addition of industrial wind turbines. In fact, Germany is building more coal plants in order to provide consistent back-up for wind power.

At a recent meeting in Cobden, hosted by the Ottawa River Institute, a German engineer spoke and was shocked to learn that Ontario is not incorporating the current research, standards and regulations into the Green Energy Act; or adopting the regulations that are being used at credible German wind turbine sites.

It provided some relief for us to hear this and it validated our concerns.

Denmark is another example for us to learn from. As the world’s most wind-intensive nation with more than 6000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, they have yet to close a single fossil-fuel power plant. The Danish Federation of Industries says that “Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense”. The chair of energy policy in the Danish parliament calls it “a terribly expensive disaster”. Perhaps Mr Smitherman should speak to this gentleman rather than relying solely on the information so readily and enthusiastically provided by Scheer, CanWEA and OSEA.

The lobbying by these industry-based organizations has clearly been effective.

CanWEA is a voting member of OSEA, which has received funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation. Public money has been used to fund this industry, an industry that chooses to ignore the importance of public protection and the real green environmental work that needs to be done in conjunction with protecting the environment and public health.
OSEA was one of the founders of the Green Energy Act Alliance who came up with the draft law and lobbied the government to implement it.

The bias and conflict of interest that exists in this business alliance with our elected government is astounding to us as citizens in this province.

Media reported that McGuinty promised months of consultation. Instead, the public has been given an inadequate amount of time to voice their opinions and to speak directly, with the number of delegations being limited to seven dates in total. And more shocking still, the people who have already experienced the negative impacts of industrial wind turbines are being denied their democratic right to speak. In fact, if it were not for the assistance of our MPP John Yakabuski, I believe that I would not have been given the opportunity to speak to you today.

So, in conclusion, on behalf of the citizens who are members of SOS and people of Renfrew County, we respectfully place these requests:
Full environmental assessments of all industrial wind projects (regardless of size) are to be completed. To my knowledge, waiving the requirement to a full EA or instituting a “one size fits all” assessment is unprecedented for any other industrial development proposal – why allow it for the industrial wind?

The Green Energy Act must be amended to allow for fair and democratic legislation without removing municipal planning rights

The Green Energy Act must allow municipalities to engage the Province in meaningful and constructive dialogue regarding how they can best contribute to alternative and renewable energy solutions that will benefit the Province as a whole.

South Algonquin is actively exploring biomass potential as opposed to industrial wind.

My local municipality could explore the feasibility of reopening an existing hydro dam or converting struggling sawmills to wood pellet and biomass facilities. Individual municipalities know their communities, their industries and their economies.

They have the right and obligation as elected officials to work with their citizens to ensure that renewable energy initiatives benefit all involved. A true democratic government would honour and respect that right, working in partnership with local government

We are aware that clean and renewable energy is vital to the health and wellbeing of our planet.

But our rush to produce what industry deems as “green” energy should not come at a cost to the health and wellbeing of the people that live next to or near these installations. It should not come at a cost to our environment and our communities.

It must not undermine the democratic rights of the citizens of this province. And there must be a fair and democratic process to resolve complaints, concerns and for citizens to voice their opinions. The Green Energy Act must be amended to reflect a fair and democratic process – the onus of proof as written lies squarely with the victim and this is unacceptable.

And finally, policy and procedure that allows the citizens that have been or will be affected by developments to escalate their concerns to an objective and fair tribunal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I am leaving you with a petition that reflects the concerns of approximately 400 citizens from our area.

As well, I have attached copies of letters from the local municipalities of Madawaska Valley and Killaloe,Hagarty Richards. The letters outline their position and shared concerns regarding the Green Energy Act.

It is our hope that you will work as our elected representatives and that this Act will not just serve the interests of the industrial wind companies, but will be a Green Act that plans for today and protects for the future.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak today."

Township puts Two-year moratorium on turbines; issue will go to referendum

2009-03-04T13:39:00.000-05:00

Township puts Two-year moratorium on turbines; issue will go to referendum

The Township of Madawaska Valley Council has slapped a moratorium on the approval of any wind turbine projects until next year’s municipal elections, at which time voters will have a chance to vote on the wind farm issue in a referendum question attached to their ballots.

The move came after an at-times heated debate on the issue at Monday night’s regular council meeting.

It is not clear just how much direct impact council’s measure will have – Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has warned that he will not let local opposition stand in the way of so-called Green Energy projects, and has said that the province will take responsibility for the approval of such proposals – most notably industrial wind turbine farms – away from municipalities. Indeed, some council members acknowledged that they expect the provincial government will overrule them. Nonetheless, council’s move will likely diffuse much of the ongoing public pressure on council over the wind turbine controversy.

At the moment, the sole project proposed for the Township of Madawaska Valley is for the construction of six of the mammoth turbines on the hills north of the Village of Wilno. But
several other projects, many of them much larger, are planned for the Township of South Algonquin to the west, and in communities to the east and southeast of Madawaska Valley as well.

Up until Monday night, Madawaska Valley Council’s stand had been that, while it had listened to many submissions from opponents of the industrial wind project, it had not yet heard from the wind power company. Mayor John Hildebrandt had stated several times that council wanted to hear the other side of the story before taking a position. This was criticized by some opponents, who wanted council to come out solidly against turbines.

The resolution to put the matter on hold pending a referendum in 2010 was tabled by Councillor Sylvie Yantha, who in doing so was resurrecting a similar motion that he had initially proposed in November. Last night’s version was immediately seconded by Councillor Shelley Maika and the other councillors supported it.

“I think we should give the people a choice as to what they want,” Yantha said in making his motion. “I think that … the voters are waiting for answers. Let’s let the voters decide.”
Monday night’s meeting began with two delegations on the wind issue, which has been in the public eye since a firm named SkyPower first proposed to build six turbines near Wilno early in 2008.

Carl Bromwich of Wilno said he was appearing to ask that a public meeting be convened on the issue “to smooth over some of the rough edges” surrounding the dispute. He praised Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski for “leading our fight in the Legislature” against the Liberal government’s Green Energy Act bill, saying he was “doing a hell of a good job.” But it is time that MV council spoke out on the matter, too, Bromwich said.

He urged council to “use the powers you have now to make a statement” against the Green Energy Act and wind turbines.

“Your power is our power and if we lose it, we’re going to be answering to (Energy and Infrastructure Minister) George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty for the rest of our lives.”
Later, Lou Eyamie of SOS, or Save Our Skyline, the lead organization fighting against the Wilno wind farm proposal, also urged council to take a stand on the wind farm proposal.
“I firmly believe that if you people don’t make your position known … you’re going to be too late,” Eyamie said.

Municipal politicians in the townships of South Algonquin, where several turbines are planned for near the eastern border of Algonquin Provincial Park, and in Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, where no wind projects are currently proposed, have passed moratoriums on any approvals of wind turbines. Those measures, combined with several others approved by municipalities across the province, were followed by the provincial government’s plan to take over the power to set guidelines and approve projects under its Green Energy Act, which is now before the Legislature.

Denise Brotton of Wilno also addressed council. She said she was glad to see that council has taken the initiative “to do something” about the wind farm controversy, but was skeptical of the McGuinty government’s promises that municipalities will receive money from the wind turbines built in their communities.
“I have no faith that they will contribute anything to us,” she said.

She also cited a news release by MPP John Yakabuski that questions Liberal promises that electricity prices will not rise sharply under the Green Energy Act. Smitherman had pegged the increase at one per cent.

In the Feb. 24 release, Yakabuski noted that Smitherman himself put the cost of the bill at $5 billion. Yakabuski suggested that, with 4.2 million electricity consumers in Ontario footing that bill, this would mean each consumer would face an average increase of $1,200 – a 30 per cent increase over three years.

By Douglas Gloin
Barry’s Bay This Week
4 March 2009

Local Solar Expert Gives his take on Wind Debate

2009-02-06T13:04:00.001-05:00

Wind Energy: torn between the two sides

It seems every day I am asked about the wind energy debate and as a renewable energy dealer I am torn between the two sides. On one side wind turbines produce renewable (clean) energy. On the other hand wind farms require large areas of land to be cleared for sites, roads and transmission lines, a prospect that I am not keen on.

The real fact is, we use electricity and we have a responsibility to either produce it here cleanly or ask to have it produced somewhere else, cleanly.

If it is produced elsewhere we have no right to force on them a nuclear plant, coal fired plant, hydro dams or even wind farms if we ourselves are not acceptable to those various production methods.

It therefore comes back to us. We can and should produce our own energy. Do we want polluting energy or clean energy production? An alternative to many large wind farms may be a few less obtrusive ones in conjunction with many small solar systems. Notice I said small as large solar farms puts us back onto clearing large tracts of land. Almost every building has a potential to support a solar system and each system can have battery back up in case of a power failure.

Solar is more costly per watt but maintenance is minimal and the solar panels themselves can last 25 years or longer. As for decommissioning that would be 25 to 50 years away if not longer. Also, very little upgrades to the utility lines would be needed and smaller wind turbines or micro-hydro turbines (small water turbines) can be added to the grid tie-in system. We need to offer alternatives rather than just refusing these large wind turbines.

Some of the money allocated to increase energy production could be offered to the home and business owners willing to add solar to their buildings. Clean energy produced locally just like locally grown food. Is this a better way?

Doug Wagner

Barry’s Bay, Ontario

"They Be Monsters Sir!"

2009-01-20T20:57:00.001-05:00

Ottawa Valley residents may be tilting at windmills — at least those they worry may ruin their view or damage their health .............

IROQUOIS — After at least two years of advance notice that controversial power generating windmills would soon appear on the Eastern Ontario landscape, one finally has.
At 60 ft., the “personal” windmill here is a miniature version of towering industrial turbines slated to generate power for the grid while generating equal amounts of opposition revolving around sound and sight pollution, possible health risks and decreased property values.
Overlooking Hwy. 401, the 60-footer was erected by ReDriven Power Inc. which has set up shop in a vacant textile factory, providing jobs for about a dozen people. While many of the components are made in China, technological enhancements such as control systems are prepared here.
Among innovations, ReDriven has introduced a tower which — thanks to built in hydraulic cylinders — can be lowered to the ground within minutes for easy maintenance.
With some 100 dealers in North America and Europe, ReDriven has completed about 40 home and farm installations.
COSTLY HYDRO
The two, five, 10 and 20-kw units sell for up to $60,000, ideal for individual consumers who want to curb their reliance on costly hydro arriving via the grid.
While ReDriven’s 401 unit hasn’t yet stirred up complaints, that can’t be said for plans to strategically install industrial wind farms right across the region.
At a recent public meeting in North Gower, Prowind Canada of Kemptville encountered heavy resistance to its plans to construct 10 turbines producing 20 megawatts of electricity with the potential to power 6,000 homes.
In classic “not in my backyard” fashion, strongest opposition came from those living closest to the proposed site; their concerns ranged from possible health effects from low-frequency noise to the bothersome strobe light impact of the sun behind the blades.
Opponents are seeking greater setbacks than the required 400 metres between the 360-ft. towers and neighbouring homes. Prowind has proposed a 500-metre setback.
Prowind managing director Bart Geleynse Jr. said that, while wind power installations may be held up by opposition, it’s provincial government policy to implement alternative energy producers and that’s what’s going to happen.
With resistance minimal, Geleynse estimated Prowind will move forward by the end of this year with another farm, 4-5 units at Brinston in Dundas County generating 10 megawatts.
At that location, he said the neighbours — mostly farmers, some of whom have leased land to Prowind — are much more welcoming and relaxed about the project than more urban-oriented residents of North Gower.
“Sometimes, you can’t paint a barn red without stirring up emotions.”
In Renfrew County, Save Our Skyline (SOS) is rallying to protect the Wilno Hills from “probably the most destructive action ever to take place here”, according to local resident Carl Bromwich.
“We’re being told that we’ll be hosting 400-ft. high wind turbines in the name of green renewable energy,” Bromwich said. “Unfortunately, this wind issue is very political not to mention popular with large corporations, leaving ordinary citizens with little or no voice in the matter.”
‘MONSTERS’
SOS, he said, has been active in trying to educate residents as to some of the downsides of “these monsters” being proposed by four companies, while pushing rural municipalities to pass 10-year moratoriums on wind farm development.
To date, only Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Twp. has agreed to such action. Bonnechere Valley Twp. council rescinded after originally agreeing to such a moratorium. An SOS delegation will address Madawaska Valley Twp. council on the issue tomorrow night, 7 pm., in Barry’s Bay.
Bromwich emphasized that his group isn’t opposed to wind power per se but favours individual units of the type being produced by ReDriven.
However, it staunchly opposes industrial turbine takeover of scenic valley sites for the main purpose of making money.
By Tom Van Dusen
Ottawa Sun
18 January 2009

Will we see (one thousand and) six wind turbines in our valley?

2009-01-07T11:36:00.000-05:00

Look out, here they come. When I first heard about the wind turbines coming to the Valley, I did not have many thoughts on the subject. It all sounded interesting – good, clean renewable energy. It showed that the Valley was concerned about global warming and showing the world that we wanted to help. I did not have time at that moment to have any other view on the matter because I (and many others) were very busy promoting and celebrating our rich valley heritage.

Then I started reading the signs – “Get informed, know the facts – know the risks.” There were letters to the local newspapers stating the dangers of turbines in our area and the negative impact they will have on us. Neighbouring townships opposed them; one from the west and the other from the east.

Our neighbours to the east have the million-dollar view and are asking themselves: Do we want the skyline to be destroyed. Our councils have to ask themselves: should we be neighbourly? People who have a chance to generate some money by having them built on their land are saying we can do whatever we want with our land and that their neighbors have no say when it comes to the health and environmental issues that arise out of their neighbour’s land use.

How could something that I thought didn’t sound too bad touch so many people in different ways? I needed to ask more questions and I ended up talking to friends, neighbours, cottagers and tourists. They could not believe that we would let the power companies come in to rape our landscape and destroy the beauty of our Valley. There are, of course, a few in the Valley who have no opinion, just like me at the beginning. To them, I say, please get informed!

At first, I thought these wind turbines were 40 feet high, but no – they can be nearly 400 feet high – the height of Parliament’s Peace Tower. They can catch on fire (and how do you fight a fire 400 feet in the air?) Turbine blades can break off and can travel a large distance and maybe hit a house along the way. Ice can build up and the chunks then fly like missiles. How would you like that next to your home?

They produce constant noise day and night. And when the sun is behind the turbine, a strobe effect occurs – this is very disturbing to those living nearby.

How about your property values going down because living near a turbine is not the most attractive investment for buyers? In fact, I believe we will see a decrease in folks wanting to move to our area – and will possibly see many leave. Taxes will have to go up in order to compensate for lower property values and less tax revenue from homeowners.

How would you like to take a picture of a century-old roadside cross with a huge turbine in the background? That is what my wife and I will be looking at.

Our local government is in a tight little corner; they have been asked to rezone a lot of our area for commercial use. Then why not rezone the whole Valley? Here is what I believe is going to happen: right now they say they want to construct six turbines. Once the land is rezoned and the turbines are completed they’ll have their foot in the door. Because of the unattractive landscape and environmental issues, the land next door will go up for sale and the only people who will buy it will be people who want an income property in order to put up more turbines. This will go on and on… These people will not live here; they will take their money and spend it outside the area. You will not see them in our stores, volunteer or participate in any of our community events. It will be a great investment for them and that is it.

Is this the economic development we desire? The white monsters will replace our tree lines and turbines will begin to spring up in droves all through our township. The view from Shrine Hill and the historic St. Mary’s Church, Canada’s First Polish parish, will be destroyed.

Councillors are in a difficult situation. I hope for the sake of all of us, that they listen to everyone and make the right decision. If they feel that the turbines are good for us and will enhance the beauty and attractiveness that makes the Madawaska Valley a tourist destination then so be it. Hills of turbines and the destruction of the historically beautiful landscape of our township will be their legacy. Forget tourism – embrace the power industry.

Is it possible that the power company is setting up these turbines in order to grab cash from the government, which is committed to going green and needs credits to offset the pollution caused by other industries? The company can go bankrupt anytime after they receive our tax dollars and the landowners will be stuck with a white elephant on their property. And these days, when banks and companies all over the world are going bankrupt, there are no guarantees. If money is the only positive thing to come out of this venture, then we are selling ourselves very cheap.

If we feel like we should be part of the global solution to save the planet, then we have a 100-foot drop at Bark Lake that could generate enough power to supply the Valley. Wind farms are not for this area. The people of the Valley have worked too hard to promote and preserve our heritage. Stop, look and listen.

David Shulist

Barry’s Bay This Week

7 January 2009

Bonnechere Valley Township calls for moratorium

2009-01-07T11:34:00.000-05:00

BV TOWNSHIP adds it’s name to “Councils with Backbone”!

PREAMBLE:

Wind energy generation is a useful and potentially environmentally friendly method of augmenting our growing energy needs. At present, many municipalities across Ontario and the rest of Canada are considering numerous approvals for projects to harness this energy source. These projects are being undertaken mostly on private lands that cover terrains ranging from flat farmlands to mountains with heavy forest cover. Each application is being considered on a case-by-case basis with engineering and environmental reports being commissioned before decisions are made. However, the technical nature of the information in these reports is frequently beyond the ability of most municipal staff to comprehend in any meaningful way; therefore, we rely upon reviews by different engineers for interpretation. Even these reviewers do not have sufficient resources to undertake more than a casual review of the technical data and are unable to do much more than fact check the data. Some of the issues of greatest concern to the public, such as noise, economic impact and possible medical side effects, are little understood by the engineers as well as municipal councils and staffs, even after these reports and peer reviews are presented. Our tendency is be dismissive of challenges to findings that show noise levels to be within Ministry of Environment guidelines. Supposed medical concerns are generally dismissed outright. This could be a costly mistake.

There is a growing body of concern around the world that there is a need for a more comprehensive study of the reported incidents of apparent adverse health reactions due to prolonged exposure to the environmental alterations caused by industrial wind generation projects. It is beyond the expertise of municipalities and the resources available to them to undertake any meaningful studies in this area. Additionally, it would be wasteful in terms of time, money and resources to study this issue on a project-by-project basis. The provincial and federal levels of government in conjunction with the international community need to determine the nature of these health concerns through scientific study in order to create guidelines for safe setback distances from residential and other sensitive occupancies.

Furthermore, there is concern that while there may be economic advantages to a community hosting industrial wind developments, there are also potential economic losses to tourism and to the property values of those living in proximity to them. There has been little study of the true economic impact of wind farms on the host community other than opinion surveys and one outdated real estate study conducted in 2003 by wind energy proponents. Given the growth of wind energy installations since that time there should be ample, verifiable data to create realistic, unbiased studies that could reasonably forecast the economic pluses and minuses of industrial wind development. There is a role here for both the provincial and federal governments that is not currently being fulfilled.

Current policies allow industrial turbines to be installed in almost any location a municipality deems appropriate. Much of the public opposition to wind energy projects is rooted in a lack of apparent scientific information supporting current setbacks from dwellings and non-participating landowners. Added to this is a growing body of anecdotal evidence and small-scale medical studies that seem to demonstrate that the current provincial setback guidelines may be putting people at risk.

For these reasons we, the Council of the Township of Bonneceher Valley, put forward the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the production of energy from industrial wind turbines is an initiative generally supported by the public and governments through tax and other monetary incentives; and

WHEREAS, theses projects are being considered in areas which normally do not allow the intermingling of industrial and other land usages; and

WHEREAS, these projects are expensive investments and by their nature, difficult to relocate should unforeseen problems develop; and

WHEREAS, these projects, once commissioned, are subject to site control at the local level; and

WHEREAS, the local level of government does not have the resources, expertise or time to properly determine the validity of the health, economic and other concerns being raised by concerned members of their community

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Province of Ontario be requested to impose a moratorium on all industrial wind turbine projects currently being considered until such time as the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of Tourism have time to review new medical, economic and environmental studies relating to industrial wind turbine development and undertake any additional studies or reviews necessary to create realistic guidelines to assure the health and economic well being of those living in proximity to industrial wind turbine developments.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we respectfully request the Province of Ontario to work in conjunction with federal ministries to provide the people of Ontario and Canada reasonable assurances that government guidelines and regulations for the wind power generation industry are the result of well researched, unbiased studies and can be relied upon to properly locate these developments in their communities without fear of adverse effect on their health or way of life.

AND FURTHER that this resolution be circulated to the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health, Minister of Economic Development, Minister of Tourism, The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, all municipalities in Ontario, John Yakubuski, MPP and Cheryl Gallant, MP.

S.O.S. Save Our Skyline

6 January 2009

S.O.S. Save Our Skyline

2008-10-10T11:45:00.005-04:00

This is just one of the reasons that SOS or Save Our Skyline was formed here in Wilno and surrounding area of the Madawaska Valley. Not only have local townships joined with our group, but neighbouring townships also have representatives that are actively trying to educate fellow residents about the facts behind the Wind Industry who is attempting to "industrialize" our beautiful Valley.

Our local representatives are:

Killaloe
Andrew & Cathy Mask

Brudenell
Peter & Lisa Hubers

Wilno/Barry's Bay
Helen Mandy
Pauline Sedgeman
Lou Eyamie

Bonnechere Valley
Jack Stephenson

Youth Representative
Amber Mullin

For more information please contact: Lou Eyamie, President S.O.S. sos-renfrewcounty@live.ca Phone: 613-756-6018

Madawaska Valley Council goes on Wind Tour

2008-10-08T16:45:00.000-04:00

Wind farm debate picking up again

Posted By Douglas Gloin Barry's Bay "This Week"

The controversy over plans to build a series of wind turbine operations at sites across the region is set to brew up in the next fewdays.

Madawaska Valley councillors just returned last Friday “from a pretty substantive tour” of wind turbine sites in southwestern Ontario, Mayor John Hildebrandt told Monday night’s regular township council meeting.

A company named SkyPower has proposed to build six of the giant wind turbines at sites in the hills north of Wilno. Turbine farms are also being proposed in Bonnechere Valley, Madawaska, Whitney and several other areas.

The Madawaska Valley councillors took the tour to sound out opinions from people involved with, or living near, wind farm sites near the shores of Lake Huron. Councillor Shelley Maika made the contacts for the trip, “nobody else knew where we were going or who we were talking to,” she said.

Hildebrandt said councillors would condense their findings over the next week or so, and then put out a press release. Bonnechere Valley and other area politicians went on a similar trip to wind turbine operations near Sault Ste. Marie as well, and Hildebrandt said he would be comparing notes with them.

Council’s visit was timely. There are two public meetings on the wind farm issue set for this week. The first, organized by SOS, or Save Our Skyline, which is opposed to industrial wind operations in the area as they are currently proposed, is at St. Hedwig’s Church hall in Barry’s Bay on Thursday, Oct. 9 at 7 p.m.

SOS president Lou Eyamie of Wilno says the presentation will be about two hours and will run along the lines of a gathering held during the summer. That meeting featured presentations on reported impacts to health, the environment, wildlife, livestock and property values caused by industrial wind turbines, but did not include any representatives from the other side of the issue.

The second meeting in Whitney is on Saturday (Oct. 11), and concerns a proposal by RES Canada Inc. to build from 40 to 60 turbines near McCauley Lake, about 10 km. from the Algonquin Park border. The plan has particularly alarmed the people who own the 40 cottages on the quiet lake, which is largely undeveloped. In an interview last week, cottager Brent Peterson said the cottagers fear that because they are a small group, and because the proposed wind turbines would be located on Crown lands, they will be unable to stop the turbine operation from being approved.

But Eyamie says a considerable amount of opposition to the wind turbines is building in both Whitney and Madawaska and their views are certain to be represented at the meeting. It is to run from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at St. Martin of Tours hall on Post Street in Whitney.

At a minimum, Eyamie says, he would like to see a full Environmental Assessment done on all wind farm site proposals, including a study of their possible impact on the groundwater. The turbines also need to be built with adequate setbacks that keep them away from neighbouring homes and property.

But Eyamie also believes that the wind farm companies need to explain to citizens what sort of benefits would be forthcoming to the communities that allow them to set up shop.

In a related development, SkyPower sent a letter to Madawaska Valley Council saying they had tried twice to contact Eyamie twice through letters but had heard no response from him. But Eyamie, who was at Monday night’s council meeting, said the first letter arrived just after he left on a three-week trip, and that he has just received the second.

“We’re not ignoring them,” he said. “It’s just a timeline thing.”
Article ID# 1238370 http://www.barrysbaythisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1238370

Councils and Newspaper Go on Wind Tour

2008-10-08T16:17:00.001-04:00

Eganville Leader - October 8/08

Leader staff writer Neil Etienne,at the newspaper’s expense, accompanied three municipal councils and staff – Bonnechere Valley, Greater Madawaska and Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards - and representatives from the County of Renfrew on a tour of Canada’s largest wind farm near Sault Ste. Marie last week to get a sense of their experience and why the tour is so important to this area.

As wind power is such a contentious local issue and with the depth of the research conducted during the tour, the Leader will present its readers with several weeks of features.

We will take an in-depth look as the weeks progress in such areas as the city of Sault Ste. Marie and its longstanding relation to Brookfield, their experience with the process and feelings now the farm is in place. We will look at the local native influence and experience as well as Prince Township, where the farm is located. We will take you on a night and day tour, introduce you to the company operating there and the layout of the site, highlight Madawaska Valley Township’s tour to the Goderich- Shelburne and Kincardine areas and its experience, the similarities and differences, as well as the general feeling of those who attended. – More to come.....................

Renfrew County unlikely to halt wind farms

2008-09-24T23:21:00.000-04:00

Renfrew County council would probably not stand in the way of any industrial wind farm project if a municipal council already has approved it, Warden Janice Visneskie says.

Visneskie, who is also mayor of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Township, was speaking during that council’s Sept. 16 regular meeting. During a short presentation to council from industrial wind farm opponent Brian Tyrrell, Visneskie briefly donned her warden’s hat.

“I’ll tell you that … the process of the county is that we do not interfere in a local issue,” Visneskie said, explaining that this is because the county’s 17 member municipalities fought long and hard for the right not to have county council overturn their decisions on issues facing their communities.

“So now, when there’s a controversial decision, the municipalities can’t argue that they want to pass the buck to the county,” Visneskie said. It is they who “are going to have to make those tough decisions” on issues such as whether wind farms should be allowed.

The mayor added that she would soon be making a stop at an industrial wind farm near Goderich, Ont. “just to have a look-see” at the operation.

Several companies have proposed a series of industrial wind turbine projects for locations across the Madawaska Valley/Bonnechere Valley region. In the Township of Madawaska Valley, one proposal by SkyPower would see six of the massive turbines built in the hills north of Wilno.

Opponents of the projects, organized under the banner of Save Our Skyline, warn the turbines will cause health and environmental damage if politicians allow them to be built.

While as yet there are no wind turbine projects proposed for within the borders of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, both council and citizens are concerned what sort of impact wind turbine construction will have on township roads and other infrastructure.

Visneskie, stressing that no proposal for road use by wind farm operators has come before her council yet, said the council has not made any decision either for or against wind farms, but councillors nonetheless will be vigilant.

“Our concern is the protection of our roads,” she said. “As a municipality, I will offer to you that we will do everything in our power to protect our roads because we owe that to our taxpayers.”

Tyrrell, who presented council with a study of the Point Petre wind power project, asked council that it ensure that any tour of wind farms by local politicians be independent, not one guided by wind power companies, and that councillors meet with people affected by the projects.

“That’s sort of what we intended to do,” Mayor Visneskie said.

Several municipal councils, including Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards and the Township of Madawaska Valley, are considering a joint tour of wind farms near Sault Ste. Marie.

Tyrrell also read to councillors from a passionate letter by a woman whose home was hard-hit by a massive wind turbine project at Mars Hill, Maine.

Meanwhile, SkyPower Corp., which is involved in several industrial wind farm projects proposed for the Bonnechere/Madawaska Valley region, including the Wilno Hills proposal, put out a news release last week saying it was not involved in the massive bankruptcy process at Lehman Brothers Holdings in the United States.

Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws. Barclays Bank in Britain has since announced that it will buy up some of Lehman Brothers U.S. businesses.

SkyPower bills itself as a Lehman Brothers company and has several Lehman executives on its board of directors. However, in a news release on Sept. 17, the company said it “remains focused on its business plan and committed to pursuing the renewable energy projects in its Canadian and international portfolios.”

Also last week, area newspapers including Barry’s Bay This Week published a required notice of an environmental review for SkyPower’s “Hardwood Hills Wind Project” near Eganville.

The notice says the corporation is proposing “the development of a wind energy project southwest of Eganville.” The Bonnechere Valley project would be located near Highway 60 east of Highway 515 and south of Clear Lake.

The company says an environmental screening of the project under the province’s Electricity Projects Regulation has commenced. Under the regulation, SkyPower is required to have a screening of the project and then, if appropriate, a more detailed environmental review. However, SkyPower says that it will undertake an environmental review right from the start. It adds that, “SkyPower is also consulting with federal agencies to determine whether the environmental review will follow the screening requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.”

SOS and other wind farm opponents – citing bird kills, loss of wildlife habitat, harmful low-intensity noise, visual pollution and a host of other environmental impacts linked to the massive industrial wind turbines – have called for a complete federal environmental assessment, not just a provincial review, for any and all proposed wind farm projects in the area.

By Douglas Gloin

Barry’s Bay This Week

24 September 2008

Know your rights regarding Enevironmental Screening Process

2008-09-21T22:33:00.001-04:00

You Have the Right to Ask questions and to be Informed about the Wind Project Proposed for Your Community

Posted on September 22, 2008 by essexcountywind

Special Thanks to Frank Entwistle and Allen Lewis

This is intended to give some insight into the public’s right to participate in the environmental assessment process regarding this project. Our intention is to respond to an overwhelming number of requests from Ontario rural residents on this subject. Only the original document should be considered correct and complete. It is available on the internet at Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4021e.pdf

This document contains part only of the 84 page Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects March 2001 Ministry of the Environment Part A – Overview. It was created by computer Cut & Paste, along with our edits, insertions and comments for clarification. The authors do not assure accuracy or correctness.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE ACT?

In the Act, “environment” means,
(a) air, land or water,
(b) plant and animal life, including human life,
(c) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community,
(d) any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans,
(e) any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities, or
(f) any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them,
in or of Ontario

WHY DOES THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER) HAVE TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU?

Under The Environmental Assessment Act it is the proponent’s (developer’s) responsibility to design and implement an appropriate consultation program for the project. The consultation program must provide appropriate opportunities and forums for the public to participate in the screening process. Failure to carry out adequate public consultation or to address public issues or concerns may result in requests to elevate the project (see Elevation Requests below).

WHEN DOES THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER) HAVE TO INFORM YOU?

Proponents (developers) are required to prepare a Notice of Commencement at the beginning of a Screening to formally announce the project is subject to the Environmental Screening Process and is commencing. The Notice of Commencement must provide basic information on the project including a description of the project (proponents must include all phases and components of the project), including construction, turbines, transmission lines, outbuildings, roads, etc., the proposed locations, the proponent’s (developer’s) name and a contact name, address and phone number, the operation, and retirement of the project (the specifics are described in Part B of the Guide).

It is inappropriate for proponents to break up or “piecemeal” a larger project into separate components or phases, with each part addressed as a separate project.

WHO MUST BE INFORMED BY THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER)?

All notices must be mailed or delivered to households in the immediate vicinity of the project and to affected government agencies. The notices should also be mailed or delivered to other potentially interested parties. The proponent (developer) should also mail or deliver the notices to other potentially affected agencies, municipalities, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, landowners, residents, businesses, and local interest groups, even if they have not previously expressed an interest.

HOW DOES THE PROPONENT (DEVELOPER) SEND YOU INFORMATION?

The proponent is required to mail or deliver all notices to all who have expressed an interest in the project. For this purpose, the proponent (developer) is required to maintain throughout the screening process a mailing list of all persons and agencies that provide comment and input to the process or otherwise express an interest in the project. Proponents (developers) must make supporting information and copies of all correspondence related to the Environmental Screening Process available for public or agency review if requested.

HOW CAN YOU PARTICIPATE?

Conducting a Screening - The proponent (developer) then applies the screening criteria (found in Appendix C of the Guide) to the project as it has been described in the project description outlined above. This involves answering a series of questions, based on the screening criteria, to identify the potential for any negative effects on the environment. The screening criteria are presented in the form of a checklist with the option of a “Yes” or “No” response. The completed Appendix C will form part of the final Screening Report and will be available for public review. Extensive studies and reports must be completed to prove and mitigate all identified potential negative environmental effects.

Public Consultation - The purpose of public consultation in the Environmental Screening Process is to allow the proponent (developer) to identify and address public concerns and issues and to provide the public with an opportunity to receive information about and make meaningful input into the project review and development.

Consultation is necessary for the proponent (developer) to:
- properly notify potentially interested and affected stakeholders;
- identify and assess the range of environmental and socio-economic effects of the project; and
- address the concerns of adjacent property owners, interest groups, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, and members of the public that may be directly affected by some aspect of the project.

The applicant’s (developer’s) public consultation program should:
- identify potentially affected stakeholders;
- describe how the project may affect the environment;
- provide appropriate notification to identified stakeholders;
- inform the public where, when and how they can be involved;
- identify public concerns and issues related to the project;
- address public concerns and issues raised during the program; and
- document how public input is taken into account in the screening process and in the project planning and development.

THE FINAL NOTIFICATION

Upon completion of a Screening, the proponent (developer) must prepare and distribute a Notice of Completion. This notice is intended to inform public, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, and agency stakeholders that the proponent (developer) has completed a Screening under the Environmental Screening Process and that the minimum 30-Day Review Period is commencing. The notice must also indicate where copies of the Screening Reports can be obtained or reviewed during the 30-Day Review Period. The notice must be placed in a local newspaper with circulation in the vicinity of the project (or an appropriate equivalent means of notifying the public where no such newspaper exists). THIS IS THE PUBLIC’S OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT DEFICIENCIES AND TO INSIST ON CREDIBLE ANSWERS USING ELEVATION REQUESTS.

YOU HAVE THE LEGISLATED RIGHT RECEIVE CREDIBLE ANSWERS

ELEVATION REQUESTS

Members of the public, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, or agencies with outstanding environmental concerns regarding a project undergoing the screening process should bring their concerns to the attention of the proponent (developer) as early in the process as possible. If concerns are not resolved, the concerned party can ask the proponent (developer) to voluntarily elevate the project, either before or during the 30-Day Review Period. If the proponent (developer) declines to voluntarily elevate the project during the 30-Day Review Period, the party may write to the Director of the EAAB to request that the project be elevated.

If one or more requests for elevation of the project are received within the 30-Day Review Period by the Director of the Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch (EAAB) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the project cannot proceed until the Director makes a decision on the request(s) for elevation.

Director, Certificates of Approvals - Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch is Doris Dumais: doris.dumais@ontario.ca
Director (Acting) - Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch is Agatha Garcia-Wright: agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca
Ontario Minister of the Environment: John Gerretsen: jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Abandoned Farms and Hydro Upgrades

2008-09-20T10:55:00.002-04:00

The following pictures were just recently captured of the effects wind development has on a small rural town. Here is a short explanation by the photographer of what he saw:

"A few weeks ago a friend of mine and I went out to take photos of the new wind turbines put up by Enbridge in Bruce Township, near Kincardine. It was the first time we had been back to his old neighbourhood and he kept remarking on the drastic change to the landscape. We visited a number of his old neighbours who now live beside turbines. Everyone will recall how nobly, and a great expense to themselves, some of the people of this township fought at the public MOD hearing where they were ridiculed and belittled by the Enbridge lawyer and obviously ignored by the chairman.

The photos are revealing in that they demonstrate the enormous number of transmission lines that have been added to these quiet country roads. The photo of the transformer station illustrates the huge footprint taken up by a wind turbine development on the landscape. With its interconnecting transmission lines, it fragments the natural habitat.

The photo from the screen door is taken at the house of a farmer who was forced to sell his farm at a considerable discount because of the arrival of the wind turbines. He feels fortunate, however, to have sold it at all. Many other houses in the district have been for sale without buyers for many months."

2008-09-20T10:53:00.000-04:00

Madawaska Valley Council addressed by S.O.S.

2008-09-17T10:55:00.001-04:00

Look closely at wind farms, council urged

On Monday night, Genevieve Jones of the group Save Our Skylines (SOS) attended the Madawaska Valley council meeting with a list of questions submitted to SOS. Council has indicated it planned to visit a wind farm in the near future and Jones asked that members consider her questions while on the excursion.

“We’re concerned that wind companies are not giving full side of the story,” Jones said.

One question dealt with long-term effects of the wind farms on property values, health, tourism and the environment.

Councillor Phil Conway, who chaired the meeting, said he’d heard at the SOS public information meeting that property values would be lowered, but said he’d also heard that the lands where turbines are installed are often of low value anyway. Councillor Bonnie Mask said she had heard concerns about noise from the turbines and about the deer hunt.

Jones wondered about the safety of groundwater.

“We’ve heard that they will have to do blasting to put the foundations for the turbines in,” she said. “How will that impact groundwater and wells?’

Conway stated the township “has an agreement with these people that they can’t do anything until they report back to this council. That hasn’t happened yet.”

Councillor Sylvie Yantha said council would be better able to answer Jones’ questions after the wind farm tour. Jones asked if the community of Kincardine is on the tour.

The council’s original plans were to visit Shelburne; Councillor Shelley Maika asked why Jones mentioned Kincardine.

“We’ve heard of people who have had to leave their homes” because of the turbines, Jones responded.

CAO/Clerk Pat Pilgrim advised those at the table that the township has been invited to join other municipalities in a bus trip to the Prince Wind Farm near Sault Ste. Marie.

“Bonnechere Valley is organizing this trip; the consensus is that the terrain in that area is similar to ours,” she said.

In a telephone conversation with Bonnechere Valley CAO/Clerk Bryan Martin Tuesday morning, he said it made sense for the municipalities to combine forces.

“Several municipalities have been talking individually about visiting wind farms, so why not save money and go together?” he said.

“There is no sense looking at a wind farm in open farm land in southern Ontario,” he added. “The terrain in the Soo is similar to here.”

Martin said he is hoping those taking the trip will be able to talk to people who live close to the wind farm as well as see the turbines in action. The trip is expected to take place early in October. Madawaska Valley Township has yet to confirm whether it will join the trip to the Soo or visit the Shelburne area on its own.

By Heather Kendall

Barry’s Bay This Week

17 September 2008

Wilno will experience this!

2008-09-06T11:46:00.001-04:00

Small town ripe for Wind Developers and DESTRUCTION!
September 4, 2008

The Town of Barre is about to enter a growing club, comprised of communities that have said YES to wind development. With the passage of their law permitting wind turbines to be built anywhere in the town with minimal setback and noise protections, Barre is ripe for development.

What will Barre’s future look like? Well, now that the Spanish company Iberdrola has managed to bypass the major safeguards usually imposed on utility companies, they are eager to find places to build their tax shelters – er, wind farms. Erecting wind turbines, whether in windy areas or in places where they won’t generate a single kW of electricity (like Barre) will provide them with enough tax credits and subsidies to pay off their investment in a few short years and also shelter them from paying taxes on most of the income that Energy East will earn them in New York State. For some reason, those facts escaped our elected officials, and didn’t deter them from heavily promoting the deal as a good one for New Yorkers (huh?).

But back to Barre, a small, rural, mostly flat township 10 miles south of Lake Ontario in western New York. A few powerful farmers and quarry owners dominate the political landscape here, and soon their wind turbines will dominate the actual landscape. Neighbors are being enticed to sign leases and agreements for a few thousand dollars that will tie up their land for decades and prohibit them from complaining about any of the nuisances that the turbines generate, and from even saying anything to their friends or family members about what they have done. The strain is already starting to be felt: people avoiding one another, refusing to speak openly when asked, or just plain telling others “It’s none of your business.” Funny how putting up a 420 ft. tall machine that may make loud noises just a thousand feet from your home is considered none of your business, but in this community it is. People are afraid to speak out, for fear of severing life-long friendships. Wait until they see what the presence of those machines does to those relationships.

So now the law is passed and Iberdrola has been busy signing people up. Next will come the earth moving equipment to blast and dig holes for the bases, then the trucks carrying 50-ton loads of towers and nacelles and blades, and the giant cranes to erect them. It won’t take long. The parts have been stored off the Thruway at various locations, just waiting for the formality of approval from the Public Service Commission. Now that that charade is over, the trucks will roll!

If it’s not too windy, the towers will go up quickly, mostly by specialized crews from outside our area. Our little restaurants and delis will see a short boom in business while they are here. But before you know it, these workers will be gone, leaving us with several gleaming white towers supporting giant blades that will stand there. And stand there. Our wind in Barre is pretty fickle – too light to drive those giant blades most of the time and too strong for their hubs during times of high winds. So they will produce very little, if any, electricity that can be sold into the grid. We won’t know that, of course, because like the results of the meteorological towers that have been up for a couple years to measure our wind, we will never be allowed to see the results of their meters. The wind industry very carefully guards that information, claiming it is “proprietary” and that releasing it would somehow put them at a disadvantage against their competition. Except that they don’t have any competition. Before Thanksgiving, they will have gotten everyone who can be persuaded to part with their judgment for a few bucks to agree to permit the company to use their land for wind development for decades to come. Why an intelligent person would tie up their land, not only during their lifetime but for the lives of their children, is hard to understand. There is something about having money waved under your nose that makes otherwise good people do truly stupid – even harmful – things.

It probably wouldn’t matter if these greedy fools were the only ones who suffered the consequences. But the tragedy is that the ones who profit the most will probably move south in years to come, leaving everyone else to deal with the mess they have created.

What mess? Well, 60 or more turbines will march across our town in any direction that works for the developer. So expect them all over the most beautiful part of town where the open land and woods harbor all kinds of wildlife. When that room is used up, the turbines will be built 1000 ft. from homes and businesses, so that the maximum number of machines can be squeezed onto the land. If a property is needed for transmission lines, it will be taken by eminent domain and its owner minimally compensated for the loss. No one will be exempt, except those with large parcels who have agreements with the wind developer to keep the turbines away from their homes. Once again, the aristocracy comes out on top, and the rest of us suffer. I thought we lived in a democracy, but I must have been dreaming.

In a decade or two we will look very different from today. Now, we are a bucolic landscape with a few industrial intrusions. Tomorrow we will be an industrial wasteland, with perhaps a few corners of untouched beauty. The aging towers will stand idle, rusting and dripping hydraulic fluid all over the ground, contaminating what was supposed to be returned to farmland when the turbines were no more. But the money that built them will be long gone and its owners untraceable, and the locals will be stuck trying to find a way to finance the demolition of millions of dollars of aging equipment. The bonds and funds promised to pay for this will have proven to be worth no more than recycled paper. Anyone who could afford to leave the area and could manage to find a community where such degradation was not permitted, will have sold and moved away. Those left, the old, the poor, the family-bound, will not be able to deal with the costs. It will be a bleak and lonely landscape, indeed.

But never fear; a savior will rush in! The government of Abu Dhabi, providing Iberdrola with our oil dollars to build their turbines, will be happy to buy our farmland at fire-sale prices. The barren Middle East is facing a food crisis, and fertile farmland, even if somewhat polluted by wind turbines, is exactly what they need to feed their populations.

How will we feed ours, when we’ve industrialized our farmland and then given it away? Apparently nobody in power is concerned about that today. That will be a problem for the next generation to worry about. Our state agencies are more concerned about enriching farmers than they are with preserving farming, or they would never permit the industrialization of prime farmland like that in Barre. And our Barre farmers apparently aren’t very committed to farming, if they would sign deals that will bring such a future to their acreage.

As I read over what I just wrote, I think that I am a lunatic – and you probably do, too. I hope I’m dreaming and will soon wake up from this nightmare. But in case I don’t, hold on to this article for a couple decades and see how much of it comes true. I sincerely hope I am dead wrong, but I have an awful feeling that I have never been so right.

HERE'S THE ANSWER

2008-09-01T18:09:00.000-04:00

When discussing the "cons" of Industrializing pristine landscapes with huge 400 foot Wind Turbines you always get the argument that "progress" has it's costs and the inevitable question: "So what's your answer?"

Here in a nutshell is THE ANSWER! CONSERVATION!

If the Government is offering up billions of taxpayers dollars to offer an "alternative renewable energy resource" instead of allowing a few multi national corporations to grab all that money and plop down a "destructive pile of wind monsters" onto virtually wild, beautiful rural landscapes; why not offer subsidies to individuals who are much more "caring" and responsible" with their own environment.

The following pictures will show what just one family have developed on their little piece of land to "get off the grid". They have used Solar, Wind and Water to generate electricity.

This is a cottage in our beautiful Madawaska Valley that has heated pressurized water for washing and showering. Their small and "green friendly power concept" supplies electricity for lights, TV, fans and small appliances. They use Propane for cooking and though they don't have enough power for things like a freezer or microwave, they enjoy a quality of life that many of us take for granted.

Of course the Government wouldn't want to see a reduction in Hydro Electric use off their grid as then the large Power Corporation would lose valuable revenue.

Somewhat the same problem could arise if everyone would stop buying gasoline. The huge Oil Companies would "lose their shirt!"

All in all this proliferation of Wind Turbine technology that is wiping out wildlife, destroying landscapes, destroying property values and is causing health concerns is all "profit driven" and has nothing to do with "Green Energy"

TRAGIC!

2008-09-01T17:38:00.000-04:00

2008-09-01T17:18:00.000-04:00

2008-09-01T17:05:00.000-04:00

Madawaska Council to go on Road Trip

2008-08-27T21:41:00.001-04:00

WILNO.........Cottage country studies wind power
Madawaska Valley Councillors will go on “a tour” to investigate how wind turbine operations affect communities.

A controversy is flaring in the area over proposals to erect several wind turbine farms. One of the proposals would see six of the massive turbines built in the hills outside Wilno, Ont. and it has spawned a well-organized opposition movement called SOS, or Save Our Skyline.

Mayor John Hildebrandt, who has spoken in support of wind power, said the tour would likely take place in the third week of September.

Barry’s Bay This Week

The Sault Star

27 August 2008

Sorry, can't support wind turbines

2008-08-23T10:50:00.000-04:00

Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy? Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year. Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000! Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there are problems with the whole scheme. ...Let's make sure that if we choose to install hundreds of 400- foot high turbines in our heritage countryside we do so from informed choice.
August 23, 2008 by Dr. Ben Hoffman in The Daily Observer

There is a real conflict emerging over the proposed wind turbines apparently to be installed from Dacre, all along the Opeongo Line through Wilno, Barry's Bay and to Algonquin Park.

Neighbors are getting set against one another over this; even some families have started to split, brother against brother.

The issue has serious implications for all of Renfrew County.

Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy?

Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year.

Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000!

Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there are problems with the whole scheme.

Considerable forest will have to be cut to install them, roads built to service them, skylines altered as hundreds pepper the horizon, their red lights flashing at night; and they are noisy too.

I know, because I went to Shelburne Ontario to see them.

So if you are not someone who is going to benefit directly, why support them? Maybe there is a way.

Imagine if only a few were placed strategically along the mountain range.

Out of the way, with little negative environmental and esthetic impact?

Imagine if our provincial and federal members of Parliament went to Queen's Park and insisted that our hydro rates (already higher than in Toronto) be reduced because we are sending alternatively- generated electricity south.

And imagine if the township councils guaranteed every taxpayer a cheque in the mail each year from this new revenue source (like Alberta has done with oil revenues).

These things, however, will likely never take place.

A few turbines make no business sense for the windpower companies.

They will want to install hundreds, as they have in Shelburne.

Our elected politicians will hardly persuade Ontario Hydro to lower our rates.

Township councils will not send us a cheque every year. Except for our few neighbors who will get some money, there seems no net financial, esthetic or green value in having the turbines here at all.

Without turbines what is our economic, social and lifestyle vision for Renfrew County?

Only five per cent of our workforce is now employed in logging and farming. Forty-five per cent of our jobs are in commerce and retail, and tourism.

Reality is that small business, eco-tourism, and potential retirement communities will be strong elements in the future. If we preserve our natural beauty.

Let's make sure that if we choose to install hundreds of 400- foot high turbines in our heritage countryside we do so from informed choice.

My sense is that once we are all informed and determine the net impact, we will choose to say to our would-be wind-farmer neighbor, as I have done with mine, "Sorry old friend, I can't support this project."

The author is the Federal Green Party Candidate, Eganville, ON
Web link: http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx...

Daily News on Wind from around the World

2008-08-09T22:50:00.003-04:00

To keep up to date on the current situation on Wind Generation go to the following site:

MVWIND

View of Farm after Installation of Wind Turbines

2008-08-02T18:58:00.001-04:00

2008-08-02T17:14:00.000-04:00

SOS Group Speaks up

2008-08-02T14:21:00.000-04:00

The high cost of energy and the push for green power has prompted a gold rush of sorts, as companies eye Renfrew County as a host for a series of ambitious wind power projects.

While still far from certain, several companies have made serious inroads into making large scale wind generation here a reality, with others making inquiries.

Test sites and leasing agreements with landowners are being lined up, some of which could be ready to proceed as early as the next year or two.

So far four companies have been working on projects within the Madawaska and Bonnechere Valley regions.

SkyPower Corp. is proposing four individual projects within Renfrew and South Algonquin Counties, consisting of six turbine sites each for Wilno, Foymount, Killaloe and Madawaska.

Renewable Energy Systems Canada or RES is looking at sites in the Denbigh and Whitney/Madawaska areas.

Action In Motion Power Gen, or AIM for short, has property under option with an eye to erect wind turbines along the Opeongo Line.

Brookfield Renewable Power, a Gatineau, Quebec company that owns generation facilities around the western hemisphere, has been busy negotiating with local landowners to secure leasing rights to use their properties as wind turbine sites, should the project proceed. The Canadian company is considering setting up a wind generation site south of Dacre, within an area bordered by Flat Road to the south and Highway 41 to the east.

This is not a small undertaking.

The wind turbines themselves are massive structures. Each turbine weighs 253 tonnes, with its engine nacelle the size of a school bus. Sitting atop towers some 270 feet tall -equivalent to the height of Parliament Hill’s Peace Tower in Ottawa -the turbines possess three blades, each the length of a Boeing 737 jetliner, with a sweep the size of three NHL regulation sized hockey rinks. The tower’s concrete base runs up to 10 metres deep.

A wind turbine needs a site several acres in size, making it necessary for companies building the structures to negotiate with landowners to work out long-term leasing agreements for the land.

This is to protect the investment of the company, which needs to guarantee electricity generation to utilities such as Hydro One.

This explosion in activity has alarmed some residents within the southern municipalities of Renfrew County, who are concerned about the impact windmills and turbines will have on the landscape, the environment and their everyday lives.

One of these proposed SkyPower sites within Madawaska Valley Township is beside the Wilno farm of Lou Eyamie and Pauline Sedgeman, who attended information sessions hosted in May by the wind power company. Not satisfied by the answers being provided, the couple did some research on their own.

This led to the two organizing their own public meeting at the beginning of July at the Killaloe Lions Hall, which sparked the creation of SOS, Save Our Skyline, a grassroots group formed to oppose wind power developments within the county.

Mr. Eyamie, the newly elected president of SOS, said the whole idea behind the meeting was to inform the public of the other side of the story.

“They need to know that (wind turbines) are not efficient, they’ll create havoc with our environment, will have a severe and long-lasting impact on our economy, and will put our property values and health at risk,” he said. “These things are monsters.”

Mr. Eyamie said the towers are unsightly, and require three to five acres of land which must be cleared around them to make room. Service access must also be provided to each tower, meaning roads have to be built.

He said property values around other wind power sites in the country have dropped in their presence, the turbine blades pose a risk to birds and other animals, and the health impacts of the low intensity noise given off by the machines a serious matter worth consideration.

The wind turbines also consume power on days of light to no wind, as the blades must keep turning regardless.

“People are totally unaware of the downside, that there are no benefits at all to these turbines, except for the people who have land leases to host them, and the power companies who own them,”Mr. Eyamie said.

The best way to battle the wind turbines is public education, he said. The members of SOS are certain once the public and local councillors hear more about the towers, they are certain the outcry will stop the different projects in their tracks.

“We’re taking the time to verify every fact we can,”Mr. Eyamie said, so SOS can be certain it is standing on firm ground as it runs its opposition campaign.

The group plans to hold public information meetings starting this fall.

While Mr. Eyamie sees problems on the horizon, Craig Kelley sees the potential for opportunity. But he is being cautiously optimistic.

Madawaska Valley Township’s community development officer said the municipality is working through the process with SkyPower as the company makes the appropriate zoning applications to proceed with their development. Realistically, he doesn’t see any groundwork starting for at least another year, once one factors in the length of the approval process and the short construction season.

This length of time works in their favour, as it allows council members to educate themselves on what permitting wind turbines will mean to Madawaska Valley.

“This is such new territory,” Mr. Kelley said, noting Ontario has made provision for renewable energy within its power grid, but questions do remain.

“Is this going to be the smart way to go when the leases are up in 20 years? We don’t know.”

To try and find answers, Mr. Kelley said select staff and members of council will be embarking on a road trip this fall to see for themselves how such wind turbine developments have impacted other communities, and how their councils have handled the issue.

He said they will be visiting Ontario wind power operations in Kincardine, Goderich and Raleigh to get some idea of what is being proposed.

“You cannot get the sense of scope of this until you see it in person,”Mr. Kelley said.

The council members will also take the time to chat with their counterparts within the host municipalities, as well as local people to try and get a better idea of the process to establish such operations, and the impacts it is having on the area.

“There are people who have learned lessons here with knowledge we could benefit from,” he said.

Mr. Kelley said there will be a number of public meetings which will occur as this process is ongoing, likely starting this fall, where the public will get a chance to air their concerns. He said he hopes all sides on this issue will attend.

“We’re doing the best we can with the tools we’re given,” he said. “We’re not rushing forward, but taking the time to do things right.”

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski is wearing several hats when it comes to the wind turbine issue. As representative of the constituency where it is happening, he has been hearing from all sides on the matter. As the Tory energy critic, it is his business to know all about power generation and its pluses and minuses. As a proud Barry’s Bay boy, his roots are located right in the centre of it.

“There is certainly controversy swirling around them,” he said, “in which the two groups have become polarized about wind turbines.”

Of the number of problems people have against the towers, Mr. Yakabuski said he has heard at the top of the list is the visual impact of seeing the turbines across the landscape, with the noise generated by the turbines close behind, followed by other potential environmental affects.

“The visual will never be settled,” he said. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the two groups never will meet on this.”

Other environmental matters such as bird strikes, the long-term affects of low-intensity noise, and working out the proper setbacks from towers are matters which should be resolved, the MPP said, but exactly how needs to be worked out.

“There have been questions forwarded to us whether the province has a proper environmental assessment process in place to address this sort of development,” he said. “That is a fair question.”

The MPP said those in support of the project see wind as playing a major role in the development of green power, that is, power without emissions.

Mr. Yakabuski said while wind will play a part in Ontario’s energy grid, it will never be a replacement for other sources of energy.

“I neither stand for or against it,” he said. “It is there, and it will play a role, but we can’t solve our energy problems with wind power alone.”

The problem with wind is it is too intermittent to be a reliable power source, and the wind turbines themselves need power to keep turning during calm days.

“The wind is what it is,” he said, “and we don’t control it.”

Mr. Yakabuski said it is up to the municipalities to decide whether or not to have this sort of development inside their borders. The province placed that responsibility in the hands of local councils.

The MPP’s advice to municipalities is to use prudence before agreeing to permit their development.

“At the end of the day, it will be up to the municipal councils whether they allow wind turbines within their municipalities,” he said.

“They have the right to say yes or no to these.”

By Stephen Uhler
Staff Writer

The Daily Observer

2 August 2008

CBC "Ontario Today" generates comments....

2008-08-02T11:54:00.000-04:00

Comment on SkyPower's interests here in Wilno after the CGC "Ontario Today" interview by Bill Brown with Prince Edwards County Mayor and the opponents of the Industrialzation of "The County":

"Skypower and other wind companies are here too, in the Madawaska Valley, luring poor landowners with the promise of thousands of dollars per year to sign a 20 year lease. That document includes a gag order and denies any responsibility on the part of the wind company for any kind of damage. The municipal government seems all too ready to swallow Skypower's promises and misleading advertizing, reluctant to ask tough questions, like:
Which nuclear plant will shut down because of these turbines?
Why will our Hydro costs go up, not down?
Who will pay to widen our roads for transporting the tower components, and to fix the roads after tower construction?
Who will pay for fire control when a turbine is hit by lightning, and how will we prevent forest fires like the ones industrial wind turbines caused in Australia?
How will we prevent our property values from plummeting as they have in other areas when these turbines were erected?
What will happen to people who get sick from the low frequency noise, can't sleep, and can't move because no one will buy their house? Will they have to abandon their homes, as others have in Ontario?
What exactly is the benefit to our township, other than the privilege of making the Skypower shareholders rich and allowing our government to call itself 'green'?
The public must get informed, and fast, before the contracts are signed. If not, we'll go down the same road as so many other communities before us, and live to regret it.
Check out www.wind-watch.org for detailed information, links to groups all over the world working to prevent industrial wind turbines and a response plan for when your community is targeted by a wind company."

Welcome to the Wilno Wind Power Coalition!

2008-08-01T12:09:00.000-04:00

We have developed this site to demonstrate our concerns about the proposed "Wind Farm" which is being developed for installation in our Beautiful Hills of Wilno.

Hopefully by showing the visual impact that these huge industrial turbines will have on our local landscape we can all share the concerns held by many of our fellow neighbours.

We also have a section that will bring anyone who is interested in knowing more about these machines "up to speed" fairly quickly so that informed decisions can be made.

Enjoy and feel free to post your comments whether it is positive or negative.

Open dialogue is the corner stone of a democratic process and the more "open" a discussion is the better it will reach a FAIR conclusion.