Give some credit to Calumet County for deciding not to go with 400-foot turbines. Perhaps they have seen how the landscape has been permanently trashed at Johnsburg. Now if the politicians in Chilton could start working with the solar energy people they could set a good example for the rest of this area. They will have to initiate some kind of energy program before our governor and his wind crowd take revenge. Here, near the Brownsville project, we have not heard a good word about the turbines that are operating. The complaints vary from resignation to outright fury.

It takes about 800 1,000-megawatt power plants or their equivalent to run the country on a daily basis. To be conservative, let's say 700 1,000-megawatt plants. Power demand in the United States goes up possibly a little more than 2.5% each year, but again, to be conservative, let's say 2%. This means we must build 14 1,000-megawatt power plants every year just to keep up. Kohler would have us build 7,000 2-megawatt windmills instead, blissfully ignoring the fact that the 14 1,000-megawatt thermal or nuclear power plants still would have to be built to fill the considerable gap left by non-operating windmills when the wind doesn't blow.

Now, how about a project that is 70% inefficient, could cost around $240 million of your tax money and does irreparable damage to environmental and housing economies, say, like a wind turbine farm? I support progress and the development of alternative sources of energy, as long as actual progress is being made. Common knowledge says that the wind doesn't blow every day. However, even if it is windy, the wind must reach speeds near 25 miles per hour for the turbines to operate efficiently. And if the wind flies above 55 mph, the turbine must be turned off. Thus, numerous studies have shown that wind turbines often are efficient only 30% of the time. Nobody would buy a television, car or computer that would work only 30% of the time. So why would we pay $3 million for a lemon?

It's rare indeed when inaction on a bill by the Legislature turns out to be a good thing. But by not putting on the fast track a measure dealing with siting of wind energy farms, lawmakers will have the chance to make the bill better. Proposals to give the state Public Service Commission the authority to write rules on wind farm siting, including allowable noise levels and setback from residential development, were introduced in late February and received minimal scrutiny and little public comment. In the end end, the state Senate wisely voted to send the proposal back to committee, thus ending the possibility of action on it in this session.

After looking at the magnitude of the project I realized that my farm is on "their farm" and wanted to know what that might mean to my family and me? We're talking about 66 roads being cut into 66 graveled sites, where 66 huge electrical generators will be built and operated. These electrical generators are 40 stories tall (400 feet) and will be equipped with lights and moving parts. Also, these 66 electrical generators will be connected by miles of underground cable and feed into a large electric power sub-station. And remember, there are more coming! Wow, is this really a "farm" or an "industrial wind energy complex"?

Going green is good. We're all for Earth-friendly innovations that reduce our energy needs and dependence on foreign oil. But they must make sense. Benefits must outweigh costs. They must consider potential health risks. They can't be knee-jerk decisions by elected leaders who vote for them for political gain without due consideration of ramifications. ...Read the report's comments from residents who live near turbines around the country, and you wouldn't want one near your backyard. Sure, technology has improved. Yet, EcoEnergy's proposed 397-foot towers could spread health risks farther than most turbines already in use.

In hopes of saving people from the same type of issues we've had with wind tower development here in northeast Wisconsin, I'd like to share some information with the good people of Bureau County. ...Please think about what you are doing before you sign those leases. Energy we can make from many sources; we can't make new soybean and corn ground.

Calumet County Board Supv. Jerry Criter may have held onto his seat last week, but he needs to watch his step as the county moves forward on the emotionally charged wind turbine issue. ...While Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz cleared Criter of wrongdoing in a letter several months ago, he also cautioned Criter "that any future action taken in which you have a financial interest may lead to a sanction ... or criminal prosecution." Criter needs to take this piece of advice to heart.

More than a year old already, the controversy about how to regulate - or, in effect, even allow - two large turbine projects in one of the most promising areas in the state for wind energy has been hashed over again and again. ...The point is to come up with a plan that can address the concerns of worried residents and the project developers, without it being winner-take-all. Because if they hold out for winner-take-all, everyone's going to lose.

Why a recall election? Concerned taxpayers gathered information from minutes of town, planning and zoning, and Calumet County Board meetings that raised a conflict of interest concerning Supv. Jerry Criter, specifically that he planned to put wind turbines on his property and voted on changing wind turbine ordinances at these meetings. ...His actions, after being warned by the DA to not vote on issues where there might be a conflict of interest, prompted this recall election.

Almost five years ago, a group of people in the Town of Marshfield, in Fond du Lac County, joined together to try to stop the wind development in that town from being ramrodded through the town board. Some of the board members who were also farmers signed lease agreements to put turbines on their land. Four families, including mine, eventually filed a court action against the town. Now, people come forward and say they wish someone had done or said something to prevent what happened. The fabric of the community is tattered at best.

Almost five years ago, a group of people in the Town of Marshfield (FDL County) joined together to try to stop the wind development in that Town from being 'ramrodded' through the Town Board. Some of the Board stood in line to get money for towers; when in fact, they already had received money for their "consideration". That group of people eventually filed a court action against the Town. The same storyline is accurate for other towns in that County. Now, people come forward and say they wish someone had done or said something to prevent what happened. The fabric of the community is tattered at best. The amount of angst, distrust, and hatred in the area is so thick you can cut it with a machete. Everyone seems to be blaming someone for something they did. The landowners are even squabbling amongst themselves. Why didn't someone do something?

"I do favor wind energy," says County Board Chairman Merlin Gentz, but the panel saw enough research suggesting that low-frequency vibrations and constant noise justify the setback. "No one," he says, "is saying they should be as close as 1,000 feet." Except for the companies building them and environmentalists pushing them. Renew Wisconsin, a windmill lobby group, has been decrying Calumet County's qualms for months now. In one letter to county officials, the group argued against any kind of environmental impact study since that "presumes that wind energy is an inherently harmful technology." Neighbors say it could harm the daylights out of their resale value or their peace and quiet. Windmill backers pretty much tell them to get over it.

What will Calumet County look like in five years if the current wind energy regulations remain in place? That question can be answered by taking a drive a mere five miles into Fond du Lac County, to an area just east of Johnsburg. ...You will see how this peaceful setting will be disrupted forever. You will see how the countryside has been scarred. You may also notice "for sale" signs on homes in the area. Reading about setbacks and looking at pictures of wind turbines does not give justice to their sheer size. A first-hand visit in a populated environment similar to Calumet County (as opposed to a "traditional" wind farm in a sparsely populated area) can be an eye-opener.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the turbine debate is its sole focus on health and safety issues; there are much more compelling reasons for regulating industrial turbines, particularly in the environmental and economic spheres. I find it particularly disturbing that the Wisconsin statutes that mandate renewable energy use have deliberately removed the term "welfare" from local regulatory powers to protect "health, safety and welfare." This censors debate on all issues except health and safety, and the most important reasons to regulate commercial turbines are left off the table. ...This [Trempealeau County] ordinance passed not because the citizen's committee was stacked, or because the county board is incompetent, it passed because the developers were unable to demonstrate that the county had anything to gain by unfettered development. Protecting the health and safety of its citizens was more important than profits.

Underlying all of those concerns is the question of whether wind power is a long-term energy alternative that can survive without taxpayer subsidies. "The biggest problem is the unreliability," said Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation. "With wind power, you just don't know when the wind will be blowing." Importantly, Lieberman noted, it's on the hottest days--the time of greatest energy demand--when wind power is most likely to fail.

the Calumet County Board has very limited authority under Wisconsin law to restrict wind towers. Wisconsin Statute 66.0401 states in part: No county may place any restriction, either directly or in effect, on the installation or use of a wind energy system, unless the restriction satisfies one of the following conditions: a) Serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety; (b) Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency; or (c) Allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency. Since this law was enacted in the early 1980s, there has not been one recorded case where a municipality was successful in banning wind towers outright.

County government has the right and duty to investigate the reality of wind turbine facilities and to write a wind energy ordinance that protects the health and safety of its citizens. ...You have to be very naive to believe a 400 to 500 foot, 270-ton to 330-ton piece of machinery would not make noise and negatively affect your family and community. Yes, many of us in Trempealeau County want to protect our health and safety - if you're as smart as I think you are, wouldn't you too?

My first and only reason for opposing this wind industrial complex, Forward Energy, was the environmental cost to the protected migratory bird populations as well as the internationally recognized Ramsar identified wetland, the Horicon Marsh and the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. ...When a mega-corporation buys its way through local, county and state governments to get what it wants, maybe it's time to take a serious look at those in charge.