Also, as I draft this response, I have just received confirmation that the Public meeting and Public Hearing for NPDES Permit No. PA 105560700 1; Proposed Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm, Ogle and Shade townships, Somerset County and Napier Township, Bedford County will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 28, at the Shade-Central City High School. I'll be there - will you? In closing, in regards to your mentioning Newton's third law of motion, I would add this - "Desperate people do desperate things" and so it goes with the industrialization of Shaffer Mountain. Desperation on your and Gamesa's part, Tim Vought! We will "Save The Mountain!"

Besides the fact that industrial wind turbines destroy habitat, endanger wildlife and disturb wetlands and streams, I guarantee that if you were told that when you look out of your picture window, instead of seeing the beautiful horizon, you will see an industrial turbine staring back at you, you would throw a fit. Well, that is what I will be viewing......If Gamesa proceeds with this, there will be nothing left for the next generation. We are mere tenants of this earth; it is our place to take care of it. We belong to the earth, it does not belong to us. That is a world truth.

You will notice on these editorial pages lately a number of individuals espousing the "Truth" about the Gamesa Wind Project on Shaffer Mountain. With very little research I was able to find a few "Untruths" presented by Tim Vought of Gamesa on this last go around published on Friday.

Gamesa's guest column last week, written by their corporate spokesman, Michael Peck, is an example of spin, half-truths and out and out untruths that Gamesa has tried to use to promote its proposed Shaffer Mountain wind plant. Gamesa starts out by referring to those opposing the Shaffer Mountain wind plant as "anti-wind advocates." Nothing could be further from the truth.

How did Gamesa Corporation, a wind-energy company from Spain, find Shaffer Mountain, a small section of the Allegheny Front in Pennsylvania, which lies in Somerset and Bedford counties? Although we do not know all the details, we do know in 2004, that Gov. Rendell and Kathleen McGinty, secretary of Department of Environmental Protection, enticed Gamesa to abandon plans to build in Texas, by promising Gamesa that it would receive millions of dollars in grants, loans, and tax credits, financed with taxpayers' money. Federal income tax shelters will allow Gamesa to avoid paying taxes owed and thereby recover two-thirds of the capital cost of each turbine - about $2 million each. We also know that Gamesa has received tax-free status through 2018 by locating on land that is a Keystone Opportunity Improvement Zone. Even before Gamesa started construction in our state, the company had purchase agreements and letters of intent to sell 400 megawatts worth of wind-generated power to Pennsylvania utilities. But how did Gamesa find Shaffer Mountain? It's simple: Shaffer Mountain has wind.

Mr. Oldham mentions the report of hydrologist, James Casselberry, who, based on six pages of information Gamesa originally supplied, said the development would not hurt anything because the construction would be on the surface and WAA gets its water from deep wells. This conclusion is absurd. Last time I checked, water falls from the sky on the surface of the land - right where Gamesa wants to develop this project. The WAA can stop this project dead in its tracks. It has the absolute legal right to do so under the land use agreement it signed with Berwind in 1989. In order to insure that the water supply for their 10,000 customers is not degraded, WAA must maintain their vote against this development.

Tilting at Windmills" on May 18 may have left some readers unaware that there are factual reasons for intelligent, well-adjusted people to oppose the construction of wind turbine complexes in the county. Conflict lies between those who wish to preserve the natural character of large tracts of undeveloped land and those who do not care or are among the few who will benefit financially from turbines.

Permitting the placement of windmills in state forests and parks would be an abomination -- an outrage against the very concept of public lands set aside to permit the enjoyment of nature, preserve habitat for wild animals and plants, and protect watersheds.

When it comes to energy sources, nothing comes without a price. The question is where and when we'll pay, as individual consumers - and as a species. The direct costs are easy to measure. All you have to do is look at the numbers flying by on the gas pump the next time you fill up or check your latest utility bills. It's the indirect costs - and unintended consequences - that usually leave people scratching their heads when it's too late.

Consequently, Iberdrola's $18,000 contribution offer to Mahanoy Township for its Locust Ridge wind energy facility represents less than 12 percent of the national average payment made by windplant owners to local jurisdictions. Furthermore, Mahanoy is getting about half of the low-end range of payment for a wind energy project ($750 per MW vs. $1,400 per MW), which is roughly seven percent of the top-end payment to local communities from wind energy project owners ($750 per MW vs. $11,000 per MW).

We have a fiduciary duty to our customers and our local governing bodies who also went on record as opposing Wind turbine development in the watershed. We cannot take any chance what so ever that would endanger the future water supply, which has always been of exceptional quality.

So I have to question how "green" are efforts that clear forested acreage when these industrial wind turbines could be placed on marginal lands. The industry tells us it's too expensive, but considering how many subsidies the wind industry is receiving in Pennsylvania, I believe they should do this right the first time. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can put an industrial windmill on an abandoned strip mine.

On Feb. 16, Commonwealth Court issued a unanimous ruling that reversed Judge Conahan on the township’s decision to reject plans for the bulk of the project. This will significantly delay wind park construction and ensure that new submissions will have to conform to a wind park ordinance recently enacted by Bear Creek Township. This decision also makes us optimistic about the zoning appeal’s outcome. It remains a mystery why county officials would spend $4 million of taxpayer funds on a valuable property only to step aside and allow it to be appropriated by others. We hope that Judge Conahan will have the decency to recuse himself from further rulings on this issue. We also hope that county commissioners will wake up and begin to protect this valuable land resource. In the meantime, we will continue to defend our watershed.

A Feb. 2 letter by windpower industry lobbyist Frank Maisano ignored two major problems that industrial windplants face in Pennsylvania: # Huge numbers of industrial-scale wind turbines will be needed to provide even a small fraction of the electricity we use (4,000 utility-scale turbines covering 500 miles of ridgeline to provide 10 percent of the commonwealth’s electricity). # Because Pennsylvania’s winds are relatively modest, industrial windfarms are being built mostly on forested ridgetops to capture the most powerful winds. In the Keystone State, these ridgetops are our last strongholds of unfragmented forests and the unique species there. Readers should be aware that Frank Maisano also was the spokesman for the Global Climate Coalition, a now-defunct umbrella group for companies opposed to the Kyoto treaty, and who dismissed the Kyoto Protocol as largely symbolic in nature.

I strongly agree with Laura Jackson’s recent letter pointing out that the ecological costs of industrial windfarms on Pennsylvania’s forested ridgetops far exceed their benefits. These costs include massive forest fragmentation to construct and maintain the 400-foot tall turbines, scalping of ridgetops to develop heavy-duty roads for maintenance, and further carving of the forest for the construction of substations and transmission lines. In addition to this large-scale forest destruction, there’s also the huge problem of bat deaths due to turbine blades, to the extent of 50-100 bats killed per turbine per year in forested ridgetop settings. Proponents of ridgetop windfarms attempt to justify forest fragmentation and direct mortality of bats and birds by claiming that there will be a significant reduction in greenhouse gases as a result of windfarm operation. The reality is that it would require 4,000 industrial-scale wind turbines covering 500 miles of the commonwealth’s ridgetops to meet just 10 percent of Pennsylvania’s energy needs. On the Keystone State’s forested ridgetops, the huge ecological costs of industrial windfarms far exceed their small environmental benefits.

What is happening to God’s creations in Penn’s Woods? Berry and Mahantango mountains in upper Dauphin County and Cove Mountain in Perry County have come under attack by developers. Once developments or projects take up residence in those areas, woodlands with their flora and fauna will be lost forever. As the woodlands are gobbled up, maybe Pennsylvania should change its name, since the “sylvania” is Latin for woods. Why is it that out-of-the area developers/entrepreneurs are the ones who want to change the local landscapes?

Before attending a conference on wind energy last December, I was leaning toward thinking wind turbines could be beneficial. Unfortunately, as your article pointed out, their contribution to our overall energy appetite is negligible. They are too little, too late, and their ecological ill effects are tremendous.

Let us not forget that we are sacrificing precious forest, rural areas and adjoining home values for an industry that cannot make a profit without huge tax subsidies, is 30 percent efficient in Pennsylvania and will not decrease our dependence on foreign oil or provide significant amount of steady electricity at a reasonable price (without subsidies and tax breaks). Once these areas are desecrated, it will be many years before any semblance of our natural areas and scenic vistas are restored.

Another announcement of plans to build a large wind farm along a Pennsylvania ridgetop brings additional emphasis to the urgent need for the state to enact a windmill-siting protocol. Failure to do so threatens to dramatically alter Pennsylvania’s ridge and valley landscape to a degree not seen since the 19th-century lumber barons denuded Penn’s Woods.

The basic problem with the 1836 law in the modern era is that it unfairly imposes the consequences of one person’s actions on others who had no role in them. Greene and Wolfe didn’t cause Noblit’s problem, and they should not have to pay for his decision back in 1972 to buy a landlocked parcel without first securing a right-of-way to the property. And while he may be planning to take timber, the fact that he is seeking a right of way large enough for a two-lane road suggests he may be looking beyond that to putting something of greater and more enduring impact on the mountaintop.