It's not every day one has to choose between the greater of two goods. But that's happening right now along a swath of environmentally rich Texas ranchland.

At issue is whether a plan to locate two wind farms along the Texas coast poses a threat to migratory bird species that often use the coastline as a way station on their journey south.

The massive turbines, whose blades each measure 100 feet or more, could catch birds as they fly south and potentially alter a rich ecosystem that houses dozens of endangered and threatened species and a diverse landscape.

Officials with the two companies hoping to build the farms, Babcock & Brown Ltd. of Australia and PPM Energy, owned by Iberdrola of Spain, say extensive research proves the farms are safe for birds.

But those studies are private and probably won't be shared with environmental groups, Babcock & Brown's chief development officer, John Calaway, told Express-News reporter Anton Caputo.

Texas leads the nation in wind power, and wind farms are indubitably a good thing. But so is the protection of sensitive habitats.

What's an environmentally concerned person to do?

Well, according to Houston environmental attorney Jim Blackburn, you strike a balance.

"There are plenty of places in Texas to locate these wind farms," said Blackburn, who represents the newly formed Coastal Habitat Alliance. "You don't have to put them here."

That's easier said than done.

For one thing, the proposed wind farms are on private property within the massive Kenedy Ranch. And property rights are sacrosanct in Texas.

For another, the construction and operation of wind farms - a relatively new technology - is not regulated by the state. But the transmission lines that carry generated energy are regulated, by the Texas Public Utility Commission.

So that's where the battle must be fought.

This month, a federal administrative law judge shot down an attempt by the alliance to acquire "intervenor status," which would have given members a chance to ask the PUC to reject the 21-mile power line connecting the turbines to the electrical grid.

Monday, alliance members filed an appeal with the commission, which has up to 10 days to decide. Only one commissioner must request to hear the appeal, but two of the three must vote on the request.

"From a legal standpoint we need some place to start this conversation. We're just asking them to let us in to talk about this issue," Blackburn said. "It's a whole lot of legal 'Mother May I?'"

Blackburn said environmental regulations on the state level stem from federal law. But federal environmental law largely stopped being written in the 1990s, before wind power became a real player.

Add to that a general disposition against regulation in Texas and you've got a situation ripe for conflict, in this case even among normally aligned conservation and environmental groups.

"You get a good concept like wind power and you put it in the wrong place and it's not such a good idea," Blackburn said.

A federal law, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, might prove fruitful in keeping the wind farms from being built. The treaty makes it illegal to kill any listed migratory bird. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service weighed in, sending Calaway a letter listing the endangered species in the area and noting that the killing of such species is illegal "unless permitted by the Service."

Blackburn noted that CITGO Refining and Chemicals Co. was found guilty in July for practices that killed migratory ducks that ingested or were coated with oil.

He should know. He served on the legal team that defended CITGO.

Wind power is great. So are natural habitats. This is a tough one.

But before deciding on the greater of those two goods, the least the PUC can do is listen to the arguments of those who have both interests in mind.