I consider myself an environmentalist and I never thought I would find myself critical of the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club. But recently I did some research, and conducted an interview with the chapter's architect of its wind energy policy, Craig Volland. What I found has disturbing implications for anyone who values the clean, beautiful prairie landscape of the Smoky Hills and the Flint Hills.

In brief, the Kansas Chapter is so consumed by the problem of global warming that every other traditional Sierra Club priority has pretty much gone by the boards. Traditionally, the national Sierra Club has served as a check on unregulated development by corporations. But in Kansas, the Club has aligned itself WITH wind power developers. Traditionally, the national Sierra club has fought to preserve outstanding landscapes and natural areas-everything from virgin forest in the Pacific Northwest to the redwoods of California. But in Kansas it has taken the position that virtually no landscape should be protected from developers.

Here is the heart of the Kansas Chapter's position paper on wind energy. ("Wind Energy-Kansas Chapter Position-June 2007″):

"Aside from the area designated by the Governor (Sebilius) as the ‘Heart of the Flint Hills' we think that all areas of Kansas should be open to wind power development provided [that] proper safeguards are taken to ensure that environmental impacts are limited.

"Viewscape concerns are generally not sufficient reason to prohibit wind turbines. However this is an issue whose resolution should be left to the local political process.

"Unplowed ground, or cow pastures, are not equivalent to original or functioning prairie if they are in use for human purposes [and are not eligible for protection] unless they are officially protected. It is not logical to allow widespread destructive practices related to cattle grazing while at the same time asserting that wind turbines should be prohibited on the same ground."

Consider the implications of this position.

Viewscape-that is, scenery, no matter how beautiful or ecologically significant-is generally not enough to bar wind farms.

With the change of a single word-"prairie" is redefined as "cow pasture "-whole regions of never-plowed prairie, including all of the Smoky Hills and some of the Flint Hills, is redefined as just another mundane landscape, unworthy of protection.

The Kansas Chapter has a real antagonism toward ranchers and ranching. It defines ranching as "destructive" then takes the position that as long as ranches and ranchers exist, ranch land should be open to wind farms. This is a self-serving definition, one that can only work against ranchers and for the Club.

In my interview, I asked Mr. Volland what areas, if any, of Kansas he would shield from wind farms. He replied that two categories of land should be open to wind farms: Cultivated land and "grazed land." Well, of course, the two categories constitute about 90% of Kansas. About the only category that would seem to be exempted is wooded land in far eastern Kansas. But this isn't much of a concession, since far eastern Kansas is generally regarded as not windy enough for wind power in the first place.

The Kansas Club would exempt "officially protected" land. Trouble is, there isn't much officially protected land in Kansas.

It is worth noting that other environmental groups in Kansas continue to fight for the preservation of beautiful, or environmentally sensitive, land. The Kansas Audubon Society opposed the Smoky Hills wind farm. The Kansas chapter of the Nature Conservancy takes the position that wind farms can be part of an effort to develop renewable energy, but that a wind farm is nevertheless an industrial- sized intrusion on the landscape and, as such, should be sited with the same care as any other industrial-sized intrusion.

If the Sierra Club of California or the Sierra Club of New Jersey took the position that there's nothing of value out there in Kansas, so let's pack in as many wind turbines there as we can, I would be upset but could at least understand where they are coming from. But when the Sierra Club of Kansas takes the position that there is nothing much worth saving in Kansas, that is, quite simply, an outrage.