Editor:

After researching science-based sources, I have come to the conclusion that wind power is safe for humans and all living things and it is a necessary step in curtailing the devastating damage that fossil fuels are doing to the earth.

Future generations depend on us to make responsible decisions to ensure a livable earth for them, and anyone who is truly concerned with the “health, safety and welfare of our citizens for current and future generations” would be working to do everything they can to stop the devastation that fossil fuels are causing our planet.

There are many supporters for the Lighthouse Wind project. The benefits to both Yates and Somerset, two counties and two school districts will be a welcome boost that cannot be ignored just because there is a small, very vocal group against this project.

News stories have reported that “Apex Clean Energy has proposed building up to 70 turbines, each up to 620 feet tall…the tallest turbines in the nation.” Rumors have the heights as high as 700 feet. According to whom? Lighthouse Wind has not filed an application yet. No number of turbines nor height has been confirmed.

Yates and Somerset now have the most restrictive wind laws in the state of New York. Somerset’s coal plant is closing, taxes are rising there 113%, and just wait until both the Yates and Somerset schools need money. There is none. There are no plans for the future in either town other than stopping the wind farm. Then what? Our taxes will continue to rise, there will be no jobs, no reason for people to stay here.

A wind farm could change our future and give our area financial security for some time, not to mention it could make our area more attractive for other development.

We have no plan for the future, and we know the old saying: “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.”

Lighthouse Wind is due a careful consideration rather than an outright ban.

Susan Campbell

Lyndonville

Editor:

On February 15, 2018, Orleans Hub posted this comment from a Lighthouse wind supporter: “Wind Energy emits no air or water pollution, requires no mining or drilling, uses virtually no water, and creates no hazardous or radioactive waste.”

This individual has taken no effort to research such a statement. If she had, this is what she would have learned. These 600-plus feet industrial wind turbines do not materialize out of thin air. The Mineral Information Institute slogan states that if it can’t be grown it has to be mined.  All of the raw materials have to be mined or drilled.

The cement, gravel, and rebar to form the concrete base are mined. Steel and cast iron to build the tower is mined. Copper for the electrical wire to transmit electricity both inside and transmission is mined and its plastic coatings are made from oil (drilled).

A wind turbine contains more than 8,000 components – many from rare earth minerals that are mined. An MIT study cited that one 2MW turbine contained 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium (both rare earth minerals) to form the magnets needed to transform the mechanical energy of the turning blades into electrical energy for transmission. Mining and drilling produces air and water pollution. Water is used in the manufacturing processes to transform ores into components and in concrete production.

In addition, mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces one ton of radioactive waste.  Mining, processing, and producing wind turbine components produces more radioactive waste than using nuclear energy to generate electricity – and the nuclear reactors produce more electricity as well as a reliable consistent supply.

Inside the nacelle, components are kept lubricated by hydraulic fluids – oil products that are drilled. Hydraulic oil that has to replaced as part of the maintenance on a regular basis. This has resulted in oil spills at turbine sites which pollute local waters. Also one of the new California wind facilities has had oil leak problems as soon as it began operating. One of the jobs is to clean the hydraulic oil off the turbine tower.

And what happens when a turbine catches fire and the only option is to let it burn itself out?  Black smoke and hazardous wastes pollute the air. If a blade fails and flies off the turbine, what happens to that waste?

All of this information is readily available and more if one chooses to open one’s eyes and mind.  We have more to lose than money.

Betty Wolanyk

Somerset

Editor:

I was shocked to hear wind turbines compared to smoking last week at the Yates town board meeting.  If anything, our dependence on coal, oil and gas is like a smoking addiction. And wind energy is the cleaner, fresher lifestyle we should be seeking.

Just like coming off cigarettes, many people will kick and scream in the process. It’s an addiction. It’s hard. It’s new. It’s different. But the benefits far outweigh any negatives. While all energy sources have an impact, studies have shown that wind energy’s impacts are some of the lowest. Wind energy emits no air or water pollution, requires no mining or drilling, uses virtually no water, and creates no hazardous or radioactive waste.

I am a former smoker, and I quit because I want to lead a healthier lifestyle. It was hard, but I realized it was better for my health. I pray the towns of Yates and Somerset will realize that we can be a part of moving our area toward a cleaner energy future. In the meantime, it will make us more financially healthy as well with funding for our towns, counties and schools. And, we can be more competitive as we seek further investment in our towns and our future. Otherwise, our towns will continue to decline and our taxes will continue to go up.

I vote for a healthy future for my family and friends in Yates and Somerset. That means supporting the windmills.

Linda Fisk

Lyndonville

Editor:

In all sincerity, to me, my friend Paul Lauricella’s recent letter was the best I have seen from him.

Provided I understood him, he is undoubtedly correct that fossil fuels brought us to where we are today – for better and for worse. It may be that Paul’s cynical interpretation of Governor Cuomo’s support for wind energy has merit.

I would prefer to think the Governor has some appreciation for climate science and has opted to lead, even if a one-size-fits-all formula demands greater scrutiny. When my son and I spoke with Dr. Richard Perez from S.U.N.Y. Albany, he appeared to have doubts about the merits of wind turbines. Their utility is particularly suspect in an area such as ours. Paul and I may agree on that score.

Anyone who knows me knows I believe dozens of 600’ high wind turbines are an awful fit for the habitat-rich, environmentally-diverse area that is Orleans County.

Paul is likely correct, as well, that only a handful of residents will truly “harvest” the wind, so to speak.

But no amount of denial changes scientific evidence. You know the numbers, facts, statistics and observations of objective researchers. The current occupant of The White House can dismiss global warming as a “Chinese hoax”, but the Chinese are investing “the farm” in a solar future.

The idea that we can turn back the clock is dangerously delusional in this case.

From what I gather, solar energy has a tremendously positive economic and environmental upside. We have subsidized technologies that are in the public interest for a very long time.  Furthermore, if we can give tens of millions in tax breaks to entitled billionaires such as the current occupant of The White House, we can subsidize solar energy.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

One issue we should also consider when looking at the possible emplacement of up to 70 industrial wind turbines on the rural communities of Yates and Somerset is that of environmental justice.

“The concept behind the term ‘environmental justice’ is that all people – regardless of their race, color, nation or origin or income – are able to enjoy equally high levels of environmental protection. Environmental justice communities are commonly identified as those where residents are predominantly minorities or low-income; where residents have been excluded from the environmental policy setting or decision-making process; where they are subject to a disproportionate impact from one or more environmental hazards; and where residents experience disparate implementation of environmental regulations, requirements, practices and activities in their communities. Environmental justice efforts attempt to address the inequities of environmental protection in these communities.” – (http://www.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/environmental_justice_faq.html )

Other definitions include the equitable distribution of environmental risks and benefits; fair and meaningful participation in environmental decision-making; recognition of community ways of life, local knowledge, and cultural difference; and the capability of communities and individuals to function and flourish in society. – (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice)

This project would certainly not meet the goals of environmental justice! Certainly, we as residents have already been far too excluded from the decision-making process. If this project were to be realized, we would be subject to a disproportionate impact from the well-documented environmental hazards and it certainly would not create a fair and equitable distribution of environmental risks. In addition, our beautiful rural community and way of life need to be recognized.

It is especially galling as the power is not even needed; Niagara Falls is not operating anywhere near capacity and we actually have an excess of renewable energy in our area. Sacrificing our communities despite this fact is the absolute definition of environmental INJUSTICE.

The overwhelming majority of local residents have clearly demonstrated that we do not want our communities industrialized via two election cycles, five surveys and countless letters of opposition. This ill-conceived and poorly sited project should not proceed.

Donn  Riggi

Yates

Editor:

These are difficult times that we live in and we all search for a sense of security. That is a natural response to feeling threatened. The idea of wind turbines looming over us can easily become a daunting image. Now, we are years into the debate over the wisdom of wind turbines in the area that many of us call home.

One hundred fifty years ago, the countryside was being striped by railroad tracks. Those tracks divided many farms and villages. One hundred years ago, our landscape was transformed by telephone poles that carried voice messages and electricity that was transforming life as it was known. Sixty years ago, interstates cut through our lands forcing many to leave their homesteads and others to have their farms cut in half. Each of these changes was met with resistance. Each of these changes changed the fabric of our lives.

Now, we are faced with climate change. Our weather systems are more volatile and extreme. Locally, we saw drought two years ago like I’ve never seen in my 65 years. Last year we saw floods that were worse than I’ve ever seen. The winds in March tore off part of the Lyndonville school roof. This is climate change and as long as we don’t severely reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, climate change will worsen.

Climate change brings with it, economic stress. Droughts, floods and high winds cause destruction that cost a lot of money to repair.

I’ve lived in areas that have built wind farms. Some people thought that the turbines were horrible. I would look at the wind turbines and see something graceful. More importantly, they also represent hope, hope that we, as tenants of this planet might succeed in leaving this world a better place for the next generations.

Yes, we are at a crossroad. Are we willing to make the sacrifice of embracing a somewhat uncomfortable change in our reality that will make a contribution toward a much better and safer tomorrow? I would hope so.

Thank you for reading.

Mark Crosby

Medina

Editor:

I have read letters on the wind turbine project now for over 3 years. There are those I agree with and those I don’t.

I have never been embarrassed for anyone expressing what they truly believe and having the courage to publicly state it. What’s left of the 1st amendment guarantees that right. Whether or not it’s an ordinary citizen or an elected official making a fool of themselves, the reader decides.

As far as Apex donating to fireworks, food pantries, toy drives, the hungry, thirsty and downtrodden, these things have been handled by an extremely generous social services agency, Foundations, local organizations, churches, local and state taxpayers and an army of just plain good citizens – long before Apex came around. Some might say Apex is like a politician that comes around only at election time pandering for support. You decide.

Then there are the billions and billions of tax dollars that have been spent on both these poor-producing technologies – wind and solar – under the unrealistic premise that it will save the earth. The vanity of mankind is breathtaking.

On this path the only thing that will be left for future children and grandchildren will be a sad brainwashing and Third World living conditions. Without oil and coal there would be no wind or solar.

I am very thankful for fossil fuels and the great life they have given me. Even the poorest Americans are the envy of the world. Oil and coal are the engines that drive the world economy. A cleaner earth there will not be without fossil fuel use.

I have spent most of my adult life studying green energy and the forces behind it. It is a scam of monumental proportions – with a small army of dupes that believe in it like a religion. The doomsday predictions are always 30 to 100 years out. The predictions come and go with no calamity, yet the same shysters keep being held up as legitimate and they double down on the lie. He who controls the environment controls the population. Controls.

Let’s be honest. How many believe in this wind energy so passionately that they would put them on their property for no pay? How many have even a small wind turbine that they bought without a subsidy because they want to save the earth? That goes for solar, too. How many bought without the taxpayer backing?

The wind project push is about money for the land owners and to satisfy a deranged governor’s presidential pipe dreams. Will wind bring in businesses? I doubt it.

There are few businesses here in the village because there are few willing to take the risk and start one. How come Amish and Mennonites start businesses here? Because they have a work ethic. I believe that is what is lacking among us along with high taxes and regulation.

Please Look up Agenda 21. It is a progressive manifesto comprehensive plan detailing the Globalist’s vision for this century. Our cars are next on the environmental justice warriors’ hit list. Academia and Government are deeply infected. Our children are being brainwashed. You are, too.

Paul Lauricella

Lyndonville

Editor:

As a former member of the Lake Ontario St. Lawrence River Study, I would like to take this opportunity to address a letter to the editor written by Andrew Remley (January 29, 2018) who took to task the new chairperson of the Orleans County Legislature, Lynne Johnson. Lynne along with NORA (Niagara-Orleans Regional Alliance) has been fighting Plan 2014 since 2012

Plan 2014 was not one of the plans produced by the six-year St. Lawrence River Study but by a closed-door panel that included hydropower, commercial and environmental entities.

There was no representation by riparians or recreational boating. Ms. Johnson understands that Plan 2014 will have a devastating effect on the south shore of the lake. Plan 2014 moves damages that would have occurred in the lower St. Lawrence River to the south shore.

Plan 2014, if it is to be considered a product of the Study does not meet three of the Study’s criteria. First, “there shall not be any disproportionate loss to any interest.”  Plan 2014 shifts most of the damages to the south shore.

Second, “If there is going to be damages, then mitigation of these damages must be in plan before implementation of any plan” and lastly, “the plan development shall be transparent.”

Plan 2014 took away the Control Board’s ability to deviate from plan until a “trigger” was reached. These triggers are set at extreme levels that cause increased damages. Additionally, the old plan 58DD had a criterion (Criterion K) which was an emergency criterion that allowed the board to over discharge to protect properties. Plan 2014 does not have a similar provision except the “triggers” which are set too high.

Plan 2014 will not allow for lower lake levels over time. The IJC even admits that there will be an increase in levels. If Dr. Wilcox said otherwise, he is mistaken. There is over a 300 percent increase in probability of levels in the spring months of March-May above 247 feet.

What he may have been referring to is during times of low supply, the midsummer high peak will be lower for a couple years. This midsummer level would be close to levels seen at the end of November, which will only lead to economic distress for recreational boating and the local fishing industry that Orleans and Niagara counties enjoy. The harbors in Niagara and Orleans counties, particularly at Wilson, will be adversely affects.

This last spring, we acknowledge that there was a tremendous amount of precipitation, however, Plan 2014 has limits built into it that minimizes damage to the lower river which allowed water to build on the lake last spring and which may occur again this year when the Ottawa river has its two freshets in April.

Dr. Daniel Barletta

Lake Ontario Riparian Alliance

Formerly Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence Study Board member

Greece resident

Editor:

My family and I would like to thank everyone who attended and contributed to the benefit held for me on January 27th at the Carlton Recreation Hall.

The absolutely outstanding show of support and financial generosity will tremendously help to finance my heart and liver transplant! Thank you!

We would also like to thank all the volunteers who put their time, energy and talents to work to make such a beautiful and successful event. We can never say thank you enough! You have forever touched our lives!

God bless you precious people!

Love,

Matt, Rhonda and Nate Grammatico

Albion

Editor:

I agree with Mr. Remley that everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is a big difference between the word fact, i.e. water freezes at 32 degrees F, and science which uses study and theory to develop a temporary conclusion. Science is not a fact.

President Obama did not write Plan 2014 but he signed off on it or gave his approval. It seems apparent that the enviro groups and shipping industry had the sway in Plan 2014. Extending the shipping season and 64,000 acres of marshland had more clout then individual property owners and their concerns.

I appreciate the opinion of the two professors mentioned but there are thousands of land owners who have watched and studied the lake every day and know that something was major league different in 2017. Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Although it has come a long way weather science cannot predict the weather tomorrow absolutely.

If Plan 1958D kept Lake levels artificially high, as stated in his letter, then Plan 2014 was 37 inches above the normal which was already high. Mr. Remley stated that Plan 2014 allows for a more reactive posture in the face of dangerously high-water levels. If that is true then they failed miserably. The IJC continues to fail with Lake levels almost one foot above last year comparing January 2017 with January 2018.

In a summary memo written by IJC co-chairs Gordon Walker and Lana Pollack titled “New Plan 2014 Protects People, Environment and Economy on Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River.” Everybody interested in this subject should read it. Three particular statements in this summary are interesting. (1) After 16 years of scientific study the IJC was moving forward with Plan 2014. (2) Plan 2014 is a modern plan for managing water levels and flows on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. (3) Under Plan 2014, the most extreme high-water level on Lake Ontario is expected to be about 2.4 inches higher the under plan 1958D – That was a pretty bad guess.

Plan 1958D was started in 1963. That is 54 years of climate change. We have had rain, snow, drought, hot, cold and even a small amount of flooding – but nothing like 2017. I have wondered what happened to Plan 1958 A, B, C? I think plan D was an improvement and that we should see a Plan 2014A so last year is not repeated.

I think it depends on where you live to determine if your front yard is important. This is a major issue with property owners who have or will pay thousands of dollars to keep their front yards. Property owners and politicians from both sides of the Lake tried to be heard before Plan 2014 happened and were dismissed. I appreciate the County chairwoman standing with the property owners.

Ray Watt

Yates

Editor:

I’m writing this response to Cathi Orr’s letter to the Orleans Hub and the Union Sun in regard to my comments during the public hearing on Jan. 29 at the Town of Somerset.

First of all, I realize how much it cost to remodel an old farm house, we did the same to our house when we moved to Somerset. We also built a 54’x56′ barn. That being said, even with the capital improvements, Ms. Orr did not lose money on the sale of their property in Orangeville.

My second point in question, farmland in 2012 was at an all-time high. Farmland was selling between $5,000-$6,000 per acre. As a result of Ms. Orr actively opposing windmills in the towns of Orangeville and Sheldon, farmers were not willing to buy their property at market value. Ms. Orr’s 100-acre farm was undersold, when the asking price was lowered to an extremely low price, due to her activism and emotions.

Yes, I am a signed leaseholder with Lighthouse Wind (Apex Energy). With a property tax increase of over 300 percent since we moved to Somerset, including a 11.85 percent increase alone in town and county taxes. I fear that we will see a substantial increase in school taxes due to declining revenue from the power plant.

Where will the money come from? Lighthouse Wind will bolster our community, help with tax relief and offer landowners individual payments. It would offer needed revenue for our town and school system.

Somerset has had multiple opportunities to bring business to our town to generate a tax base and revenue to our community. That’s a subject for future discussion!

Floyd Koerner

Somerset

Editor:

The residents of the Towns of Somerset and Yates at a Public Hearing on January 29 have again resoundingly spoken out against Industrial Wind Turbines. In a packed room of over 60 individuals, 40 spoke out. By a factor of 3:1, supporters of the proposed tightening of the existing Industrial Wind Turbine Laws outnumbered those opposed.

Opposition arguments again fell flat as the same rhetoric Apex has been peddling for the last four years fell on deaf ears. The Somerset Town Board unanimously passed the revisions exercising our right to home rule. They are to be congratulated.  Article 10 siting board take note.

Mr. Taylor Quarles, Apex spokesman, is quoted as saying in part, “The laws … carry a very clear intent to wholly restrict any wind project from ever being built in the Town of Somerset.” Mr. Quarles is absolutely correct. The residents of our quiet, rural community do not want to be invaded by Industrial Wind Turbines. Numerous surveys, public hearings and countless meetings have shown this through the last four years. Project Lighthouse Wind and the like are not necessary, nor welcome, in our community. The physical and environmental damage will be far too great.

The Public Service Commission is requested to terminate all activity related to Lighthouse Wind. Our lake shore community is not the place for them. Our local laws reflect this and must be recognized.

James C. Hoffman

Somerset

Editor:

There was a recent a letter that claimed the Gaines Town Clerk got an “effective” hourly wage hike. The letter said there some sort of Town Resolution that governed her hours. It also inferred that last December something underhanded went. It claimed tax bills under the last administration were changed in December. My response is “wow” – how could someone come up with that. Balderdash.

In fact, New York State Law provides the clerk is salaried a‎nd the law details the clerk’s duties. Neither a town resolution nor local law can set the clerk’s hours or convert the position to hourly. (All elected officials have legal responsibilities to discharge 24-7. If that were the case every supervisor, mayor, and legislator should be in the office when it’s open.) Gaines tried and failed to use a resolution to trump state law with its old planning board. It seems pretty cavalier to do it again and I wonder if all its resolutions need to be “vetted” to see if there are others that are illegal.

As for tax bills, I hear someone neither could not read revenue receipts or add. Either way that is bad stuff. Whoever caught it should be congratulated as otherwise the Town would have had to borrow to cover the shortfall created to pay for approved budgeted expenditures.

Now MY question comes up because Judge Schmidt’s web page makes a point that most Towns have two judges. He is the only one there and has no back up. Was there a private bill in the Legislature to undo the two judge requirement or did someone simply fail to certify the position vacant? Gaines needs two judges in my view. The issue needs to be publically aired and if Gaines is not in compliance it should be.

The issue is getting the job done right and in compliance with state law and regulation. That’s what got voted on last November. This stuff now is very sour grapes.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

At a January 29, 2018 Somerset public hearing to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Somerset residents, the town voted unanimously to pass local law revisions to limit noise and height of tall structures.

This, in keeping with the World Health Organization’s guidelines for daytime and nighttime noise, within the one and a quarter mile siting from residents’ homes, and to preserve the rural character of the town of Somerset. The Town Board also chose to follow guidelines of US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding safety of migratory species which frequent the Lake Ontario corridor.

Thank you to the Town of Somerset!

Unfortunately, at this same public hearing one speaker chose to attack me by citing personal financial information, public record about a farm I had owned and sold in Orangeville, NY, in an (albeit unsuccessful) attempt to make his point that property values do not suffer from industrial wind turbines.

I choose here to address Mr. Floyd Koerner’s lack of complete and accurate information regarding the sale of my Wyoming County farm after a wind project there had been erected. He claims I made a substantial profit. He conveniently omitted some salient facts from what I will now supply as the real story.

Coincidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Koerner has a signed contract with Apex. Signers with wind developers are aware that the contracts stipulate that leasees will support and promote the industrial wind project even in court, which explains his cheerleading the Apex cause at Somerset’s public hearing. Since 2014, I have been very vocal in my new home of Somerset in relating my experiences with industrial wind and its effects on my Orangeville neighbors, I make a convenient target for Mr. Koerner and for Apex.

I now, once and for all, would like to set the record straight!

Deciding in 1991 to restore a house built in 1863 despite the cost, my husband and I gutted the Orangeville house to the timbers, built an addition, stripped the roof and replaced it with new plywood and shingles. We also added new plumbing, furnace, electrical, and septic. We built a new 30’ by 50’ barn, restored an old barn, and painted others.  We hired someone to rework 30 acres of land, as my horses would have been severely injured on the rough fields.

Mr. Koerner attempted to make the case that in purchasing the property for $55,000 and selling it for $245,000 that I had made a substantial profit. Without the details, it would certainly appear that way, but since he omits mention of those costly improvements, it is meant to mislead.

Well, which is it, Mr. Koerner? You allege that wind farms boost property values. That means my 100-acre farm which brought only $245,000, should have brought $500,000 to $600,000. You proved my point, also illustrated by Michael McCann, a certified 30-year real estate appraiser who has conducted oft-cited studies of plunging real estate values in proximity to industrial wind projects all over the US. Evidently, Mr. Koerner’s figures were the equivalent of shooting himself in the foot.

Mr. Koerner evidently enjoys referencing my farm at public events.  He has brought it up at a Yates Town Board meeting as well. What’s more, my farm was also featured in a color brochure (again, without details) sent out a few years ago by none other than Apex. Maybe it’s time for Mr. Koerner to beat a different drum when he speaks in public forums.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Pictures of renovation upon request!

Cathi Orr

Somerset

Editor:

When Letters to the Editor are signed as Supervisor or Councilman/Councilwoman for the Towns of Yates & Somerset, it is an unfair representation.

I certainly do not agree with your way of thinking in Yates and I am sure there are some residents in Somerset who would also agree with me. I think you have a right to your personal opinion, however, as board members you do not speak for all residents of both townships.

Therefore, your letters should be signed as a resident only.

Rebecca Winters

Town of Yates

(Editor’s note: Orleans Hub will often note the titles of writers if they are elected officials.)