More On An Actual Power Plant Sited By the Old Article 10 Process - Something We Can Learn From!

If you have not read my last post below on a power plant along the Hudson River sited by the old Art. 10 process in 2000, it would be instructive to read it first.  

The implied message by some around Cape Vincent and the area is that by participating in the Art. 10 process and sending input in the form of letters to the NYPSC and Art. 10 process we can defeat a wind farm on Galloo Is. or in the area.  That with enough of your opposition or concerned input an Article 10 siting board will see it our way, and up hold our laws.  I believe that is a delusion and fantasy that "Big Brother Govt" will protect us.
   
The old Art. 10 is much like the new Art. 10 and did have the local law preemption clause, and the siting process was administered by the same board on electrical generation siting at the NYPSC.

Here is a quote from the NY Times about the controversy of siting this power plant along the scenic Hudson River Valley.  This situation is not unlike what CV faced with BP, or what might occur on Galloo Island under an Art. 10 scheme.

"Since it was proposed two years ago, the Athens plant has met with ferocious local opposition, in part because it represented the beginning of a boom in industrial development on the banks of the Hudson, after the river had undergone more than a half-century of transition from an industrial thoroughfare to the attractive centerpiece of a fairly bucolic region. In recent months, opponents repeatedly tried to portray Pacific Gas & Electric as a corporate villain, reminding reporters and politicians that it was the company that polluted ground water in a California town, in a case made famous by the movie ''Erin Brockovich.''"

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/03/nyregion/big-power-plant-on-the-hudson-wins-approval.html

Geee...sound familiar??? Better pay attention all you Art. 10 believers!!!   And at the time this electric plant was allowed by Art. 10 it was one of the largest in NYS with many scenic concerns.  The NYT article says it was the largest in the nation, however I think that is in error.

Had this been CV, the mantra to faithfully follow the Art. 10 process and developing a zoning law we thought Art. 10 would abide by and protect us...well it would have been an unmitigated disaster!!!

In addition to ignoring the opposition to this plant (I'm sure they had their "input" letters) the Art. 10 board also easily preempted local zoning laws and trashed home rule to pave the way for this monster plant along the scenic Hudson corridor.  A number of important zoning regulations were simply waived for the developer.

Those of you putting your faith in Art. 10 as a fair process that will uphold your concerns and local home rule...you better start thinking again about a more effective approach.

Actual Evidence That The NYPSC Art.10 Siting Process WILL Preempt Local Laws And Disregard Local Concerns!

If the Galloo Island wind developer plans to move forward with the 32 turbine project, they will have to apply through the NYS Art. 10 process, as BP did in Cape Vincent and Iberdrola in Clayton.

Keep in mind those projects in CV and Clayton never proceeded completely through the Art.10 process.  In BP’s case they simply walked away from their CV project. As far as I know to date NO wind development state wide has completed an Art. 10 process.

The point is we have no real evidence as to how a completed Art. 10 siting would play out under the new law and rabid state renewable agenda, or if the process would completely uphold a town’s wind zoning regulations. 

 But with a little dgging we do have some evidence now and it ain't good!!!!

However, on the Cape Vincent JLL blog Mr. Wiley is once again appealing to people who are concerned or opposed to Galloo to write letters to the NY Public Service Commission if a Galloo wind farm enters the Art. 10 process.   

However, with no concrete evidence to support it, the implied message is that enough input to the NYPSC will make the Art. 10 process a pathway to defeat the Galloo Island project or in the case of other towns, the input will force the Art.10 siting board to uphold restrictive wind zoning.

In my opinion this is a  very misguided and dangerous message based on nothing credible. that puts far too many in complete denial as to what Art. 10 is actually intended to do.  It is not to defeat wind development because a bunch of people wrote letters showing concern or opposing a particular project or a town wrote tough wind zoning regulations.

Art. I0 is designed to SITE energy projects including wind projects, not defeat them.  Wiley and others like the town of CV go off the rails with absolutely NO evidence when they support involvement in Art. 10 to imply  it will uphold a town’s zoning and wind regulations.  

 And keep in mind Art. 10 can simply preempt local laws the developer can convince the board are too restrictive.

But the big debate is and has been whether Art. 10 will uphold local laws or not or go with enough local opposition or not.

Robert Brown the head of the CV zoning law committee that developed strict wind regulations said on NPR that the Art. 10 board will uphold our CV laws once they see they are for the health safety and welfare of the community.  Really?… there is evidence in the record exactly to the contrary.  This was also the mantra of the entire CV Town Board.  And it may be frighteningly wrong!

So where is the evidence Brown, the CV Board, and Wiley seem to rely on, and Wiley uses to promote the idea of letter writing to the NYPSC and Art. 10 to defeat industrial wind development?

Actually there is none!

But as I said  there is actually evidence showing an opposite case. 

 That evidence is housed in the previous Art. 10 law that expired.

 The old law was not that different than the new one and included the local law preemption clause.   The old Art. 10 was host to  a number of actual electric generation projects that went completely through the siting process and were granted permits AND which in some cases  DID preempted local laws despite the opposition of environmental groups on scenic issues etc, although these were gas projects not wind projects.  And  that included preemption of local law’s setbacks and height restrictions. 

There is a lot to learn here, and it should be a wake up call to Art. 10 promoters implying the defeat of wind through writing letters and supporting this process and playing in this rigged game.

Below is part of a decision by an Art. 10 siting board concerning gas electric generation plant proposed in Athens, NY along the Hudson River some years ago under the old Art. 10.   

Several environmental groups opposed the plant on scenic and other grounds and the decision to permit it.  They even sued the Art. 10 decision after the fact and lost.  There are some parallels to CV and what might occur around us including Galloo Island.

The quotes below are the rational by the Art. 10 board to actually preempt some important zoning regulations to ensure the siting of the power plant.

"5. Conclusions"

"The proposed generating facility would comply with the requirements of the LI zoning classification applicable to the facility's site. The zoning ordinance's criteria for light industrial uses would be met, while the ordinance's restriction on the pH content of discharges to drainage channels would not

apply to discharges of cooling water and treated waste water into the Hudson River.

The pump house would be a non-conforming use in a RU district. In addition, the interconnects, which would cross various land use districts, would not be permitted uses or uses authorized by a special permit. The pump house and the interconnects, however, are essential elements of the proposed facility. Therefore, the local requirements barring those installations are unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology.

Because the pump house could not comply with the established setback requirement in the RU district, we conclude that the requirement is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology. In addition, many of the proposed facility's structures would not comply with the 35-foot height limit established in ZO §403. Those structures, which include the turbine enclosures and the transmission towers, cannot be redesigned to conform to the requirement. Therefore, we conclude

that the height limit is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology."

Note that part about “unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology”.

That is the hole Art.10 provides for itself and the advantage to the developer to worm its way past local laws. Now think about that in terms of a wind developer argument. The existing technology is massive and getting bigger all the time. 

No wind developer is going to put up 60 ft. turbines that might be screened by landscaping or trees.  The existing wind  technology is turbines reaching nearly 600 ft. to be the most efficient.

That is the "existing technology"  Do you honestly think the State is going to say NO to the best existing technology to further its rabid renewable agenda?

As you know if you read this blog, and as I have said for years, Art. 10 is a developer lobbied scam the State will use to overcome local control on its rabid wind energy agenda and home rule despite some thinking home rule will be preserved by Art. 10 not preempting local laws.  THINK AGAIN and read the decision above that clearly effectively negated home rule and local laws.

Art. 10 is a suckers game wrapped up in paper work and a promise you will have "input".

It will also overcome your input despite what the supporters of the Art. 10 process like Wiley at JLL are promoting.

The record is clear here in the old Art. 10 siting evidence that despite opposition, even on scenic grounds in a place like the treasured Hudson River Valley, your input will mostly likely be disregarded.  And the contention that a wind law will dissuade an Art. 10 siting board is getting real thin and Art. 10 process supporters are dealing out more fantasy than reality.

Now as a supporter of the Art. 10 process and that letters opposing any local wind development will help stop a particular project, and ensure local laws, and home rule...it is now incumbent on Wiley to provide actual evidence that this will be the case.

And keep in mind that NO local Art 10 process was ever completed on wind development and as a result there is NO evidence in our local Art. 10 experiences despite what some might like you to believe.

  

Of Course Then There Are Some Places That DO Go Out of Their Way to Preserve Their Scenic Beauty!

                                                    Click on any picture to enlarge.

                 Panorama from the Sedona airport on a high  mesa showing the town of Sedona and the
                                      spectacular red rock cliffs and canyons as a backdrop.

 This past week my wife and I spent a fair amount of time in Sedona, AZ where we hiked and explored the town and area.  

We have the very good fortune to live in an area with so much spectacular beauty so close...and a population so highly committed to preserving that beauty.  It was refreshing after listening to so much anti SASS hoopla controversy over the past months.

 

     Sitting by Oak Creek at Red Rock Crossing State Park with spectacular cliffs in the background. This area was once subject to a proposal for a road and bridge, for traffic convenience that would have badly compromise the beauty.  The local reaction was overwhelming to preserve this beauty and the proposal was handily defeated.

 

 Hiking one of the dozens of trails in the Red Rock Secret Canyon Wilderness area.   No vehicles, no bikes, no mechanical transportation, and no development.   The wilderness was designated to give the highest level of protection to this spectacular beauty, at the same time providing access and recreational opportunity.  The economic benefit to Sedona that backs this wilderness has been HUGE!!!

  Sedona like the 1000 Islands is a tourism, recreation, and second home destination due primarily to its spectacular beauty.  In the case of Sedona it is the rugged red rock cliffs, buttes, canyons, and pinnacles and mild climate.  

                        Preserved forever...Panorama of part of the Red Rock

                                    Secret  Mt. Wilderness cliffs and canyons near Sedona.

The whole SASS designation controversy in the 1000 Islands came to mind frequently while we hiked and explored beautiful and spectacular Sedona and surroundings, and it just made me laugh how far behind the curve the anti SASS people are.  It also made me appreciate that I live so close to areas where environmental protection and scenic preservation are such a high priority.

There is a highly visible message everywhere you look that clearly indicated people really care, and have an intense pride in the scenic beauty of their town and region. 

 And unlike some places in the 1000 Islands, the local population is very welcoming of tourists and bend over backwards to ensure your stay is a positive one.

I could not detect any time in our visit that there was a resentment, or that we were marginalized for not being locals.

 And the level of tourism dollars coming to Sedona would  make any 1000 Islands town or business salivate.

The Town of Sedona, the area residents, and local land management agencies like the National Forest Service, show a very high level of commitment to the scenic and environmental protection of this incredibly unique and beautiful area.

In affect here are a number of tough regulations designed specifically to preserve the scenic beauty, not only in the town but on the surrounding land where much of the land is public national forest, including a large portion designated as wilderness, precluding the use of vehicles, or any development.

And it is no secret that the high level commitment to conservation and preservation and environmental protection has not been lost on tourists and potential property owners.  This effort  helps draw millions of visitors ( and their dollars) to what is a world class scenic eco - tourism destination primarily because of the rugged natural beauty and recreational opportunities, but also because of the efforts on scenic preservation and access to the what is preserved and ensured for generations.

It’s not that there is no development in Sedona…there is plenty, but it is very carefully managed and the benefits are obvious everywhere you look.  Things like strict sign codes, home and business location placement, and design and coloring etc. have a highly beneficial impact on scenic preservation and attracting tourism and first and  second home owners.

 

  Sedona homes with tough codes that restrict heights, designs, roof and paint colors, that  blend    with the spectacular surroundings.

 

You people who are whining that SASS regulation might be too tough?    Get over yourself!  Check the link below and take a lesson.  Note what the article says about developers.  And many of them are high end developers with a lot at stake.  Guess what…even they GET IT!!!

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-08/news/0405080042_1_sedona-strict-building-requirements 

The short sighted SASS whiners will never have these types of codes or commitment to scenic preservation, or understand the potential positive rewards.  

They will also never have the potential economic wind fall that goes with it because of the misplaced and completely irrational fear, and the sometime marginalization of seasonal residents who have supported the local economies for decades.

It's really sad, since the 1000 Islands area has so much potential and so much to protect!! 

 

Good Editorial By Watertown Daily Times Perry White

You can use the link below to see Mr. White's editorial.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/blogs10/a-scenic-area-is-home-to-an-ugly-fight-20150424

My comment to Mr. White's editorial which also appears in the comments under the editorial is as follows:

Mr. White,

I basically agree with the thrust of your arguments and you comparison to national parks is more relevant than you might imagine.

 I find it very disappointing that  a fundamental and relatively benign effort to protect the 1000 Islands meets so much controversy, when as you point out, it doesn’t appear the SASS designation would inhibit development in any substantial way, but could bring a host of positives.

It seems the potential upside to this designation might far outweigh any regulation it might impose, which by your admission appears minimal.

I find your comparison to the national parks of Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yosemite, and the 1000 Islands very interesting.

Most of the year I live about an hour from Grand Canyon, and have  hiked there a number of times.  My wife has twice run the Colorado River through Grand Canyon on extended raft trips, and within our family are river guides.  I have climbed and summited the Grand Teton at 13,700 ft.  In Yosemite my wife and I completed a 5 day 40 mile winter ski expedition trip across Yosemite.  Currently we hike and adventure all over the West, but particularly the Desert South West.

But with the good fortune to live with the incredible world class tourism, scenery, and outdoor opportunities on our doorstep,  we still seek out the incredible beauty of the 1000 Islands for three to four months every year.  I agree with you that the 1000 Islands are no less spectacular, from the ”Bridge”, a boat, or just relaxing on the shore.

And isn’t it interesting that the Canadians had the foresight to designate some islands in the 1000 Islands as a national park.  Frankly it makes the American side look a bit foolish to not have greater vision with an official designation and protection of the Islands.

It is interesting that environmental issues such as the SASS designation always seem to come back to a fundamental set of issues, money vs. environmental, scenic, or historical protection.  The SASS designation and the 1000 Islands are no different.  It is the same with wind energy development in our area, the promise of money vs. the visual destruction of our region.  With the massive and increasing size of wind turbines one large wind development can have staggering wide ranging visual  impacts as we all now know from the Wolfe Island wind farm.

And if all the local wind development proposals were to  come to fruition the region will undergo a staggering wholesale environmental and visual transformation from renowned scenic destination to a vast industrial energy complex.  Sheer insanity that should never be allowed or even considered!!!

It is also interesting the national parks you compare were at one time under similar threats from some industry or moneyed interest trying to exploit natural resources (timber, mining etc.) vs. others trying  to saving these spectacular places for future generations.

 In Grand Canyon for example  it was our own  government proposals for huge hydro dams right in the Grand Canyon!!!  Which now to the reasonable person seems idiotic.  

The PBS series by Ken Burns on our national parks showed the evolution of our parks from places of exploitation to protection and national treasures.

 I would think that most people who visit our national parks and other nationally protected treasures would now agree  the protections, significant laws, and regulations that protect these treasured places are appropriate.  And the regulations in these places are generally very tough and restrictive, and in some there are large tracts designated as wilderness where you  not only can’t develop, but no mechanical means of travel is allowed, and the area is to be left in a natural state unaltered by man forever.

In all my experience in wildernesses and talking to people about it, I find that to some, the idea that large tracts of land be left undeveloped is an extremely foreign concept, almost obscene to some!

You can’t just do NOTHING with the land.

I don’t understand the fuming of the people opposed to SASS.  The 1000 Islands is far far from undeveloped, it has been developed bit by bit for over a century in terms of tourism and vacation homes and the services that support them, and it will continue, SASS or no SASS.   

For God’s sake why so much griping?    It’s not exactly like historically there has been some radical unreasonable restriction on development in this region…and no one from what I can tell is proposing that.

So I find it a bit absurd when we talk about a relatively benign but important protection for the 1000 Islands, to bring it national and international recognition.  Recognition which could actually enhance the beauty and the tourism economy at the same time.  Yet some get their underwear all  in a bunch in an irrational fear that it is too restrictive. This seems a bit  over reactive.

When you examine the forces that once threated our national parks, you find it took visionary and courageous people, like Teddy Roosevelt or John Muir,  for example, to stand against the complete exploitation of our treasured places and realize the wisdom of protecting them.

So just like our national parks the historical environmental  fight goes on right here in the 1000 Islands area.

 Now in our region the flame that lit the fuse in this ongoing historical environmental debate  is industrial wind energy.   The people, who if allowed, would completely exploit and transform a region for basically a gold rush scheme based on false green promises, against those who have some vision and wisdom for the preservation of a world class environmental resource and scenic treasure.

Ultimately the people who stand for the unreasonable exploitation of treasured  areas like the 1000 Islands and Golden Crescent, and would willingly sacrifice it, don’t realize that their excesses are what bring the cries and reaction for more protections as a result.

It’s a simple formula proven over and over by history, and the national parks Mr. White talks about are testament to how those excesses were brought to awareness, hotly debated, and then defeated.

The silver lining in local  wind development is that it ignited an extremely important and heated environmental  conversation about the essence,  meaning, and value of our area that is probably long long overdue.  The debate is so important for example, it has already brought unprecedented change in that it overturned an entire town government in Cape Vincent, and brought an NYAG investigation regarding the ethics of the people who should have placed the environmental stewardship of our region ahead of self interest.   They didn’t realize it or intend it, but ironically that debate was brought to us by the very people willing to exploit our treasured scenic resources with unreasonable excesses.

 Indeed we are now like Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, and Yosemite, National Parks with a historical environmental connection no less important, and not only by comparison to their beauty!

It’s not that the debate is an ugly one Mr. White, or that either side has made errors.  It’s that there is finally a long overdue highly visible and contentious debate over the protection and future of our regional scenic and environmental treasures.

 

 

 

NEWS FLASH - A New Type of Matter Found!

There is Anti Matter, and there is Dark Matter, and scientists have now discovered Doesn't Matter!

Apparently it has absolutely no impact on the universe whatsoever!

Source - Gary Larson - Cartoonist

They Were Simply WRONG!!!

On Rick Wiley’s JLL blog there is a review of a meeting in Watertown several years ago involving state legislators to address the Art. 10 issue, particularly related to the siting of wind energy.  Wiley highlight a quote from Assemblywoman Addie Russell as if this was some type of gospel and validation.

Assemblymember Addie Russell:  

“I think you are probably better off if your community adopted regulations based on evidence based researching instead of a blanket ” No.”  I think that, if your what you ae concerned about is standing the legal test.  That is probably where you ought to go.  And that is just from a legal stand point.”

Of course I’m sure Wiley also highlighted this as validation that  Cape Vincent has done the proper thing to create a zoning law with regulations to accommodate industrial wind and   appease the Art. 10 process.  He is also a supporter of the Art. 10 process that removed community home rule on wind energy siting.

However, Mr. Wiley has also  been an ardent supporter of the state SASS scenic designation of our area.  This designation is supported by a detailed report by a highly reputable and experienced architectural and land planning firm with a positive reputation nationally in these types of issues.   The TIRAP report.

Unfortunately for Mr. Wiley, Ms. Russell, and the CV govt. that developed zoning with wind regulations to attempt to mitigate industrial wind development, those  highly respected land planning professionals who actually did very specific “research” of our area appear to significantly disagree with this approach to mitigate industrial wind  through zoning.  They in fact clearly imply the best approach would be to not allow such structures in our area.  

Geeee whiz… imagine that!!!  Here is the quote from that report about tall massive industrial structures. The TIRAP report indicates what Ms. Russell doesn’t seem to grasp in her limited conclusion.

" Consequently massive industrial and infrastructure projects should not be built within the SASS district or within its surrounding viewsheds. 
      There are presently no techniques to mitigate the visual impacts of these structures because they are so tall, massive, and frequently in motion."

Not only do they conclude these structures should not be allowed IN the SASS district…but not even in the surrounding viewshed!!!!

Where Ms. Russell’s logic falls completely apart is implying that anyone who would ban industrial wind energy in their zoning  is not using a well researched and analytical approach to reach their conclusion to  prohibit. A similar sentiment that Wiley and his blog commenters also endorsed.  Too bad they were so out of touch.

The fact is, if your intent is to truly protect your community and the surrounding area,  a thorough researching  of the significant and wide ranging impacts of industrial wind energy, the impacts of which defy zoning mitigation, then the conclusion to prohibit is far more rational than any attempt to mitigate what cannot be mitigated. 

In fact this is exactly what the SASS/TIRAP research concluded!!!

Seems that Wiley and friends and the CV govt who developed wind regulations that actually accommodates wind energy, now have a bit of egg all over their faces, since the SASS report they also heavily endorse, clearly indicates the zoning direction they followed with wind energy siting was in fact the wrong approach for our area!!! 

Not to mention that Wiley on his blog even indicated that CV was so experienced in this wind  zoning to appease Art. 10 that Clayton and other local communities should take notice and follow suit.  Great advice!  Too bad according to a reputable report it was the wrong advice!!!

Now keep in mind that the approach to prohibit wind energy development in CV and the area, promoted by myself and a very few others was heavily marginalized and criticized, sometimes with personal attacks that we didn’t have a clue what we were talking about, were only marginal voices, or lunatics screaming NO WIND!  Actually we had carefully researched our case.  In fact it was actually a no brainer, especially after the Wolfe Island Wind Farm visual impacts slapped us right in the face.

Well according to the TIRAP report by highly respected land planners who did do a very carefully “researched” study of our area …I guess we were right on the money.  And you will notice that the people supporting the wind zoning approach as gospel have not said much if anything about the TIRAP conclusion that tall structures like wind turbines should not be allowed.

Of course to me this has never been rocket science.  The State Art. 10 process created such irrational thinking and fear that many people and local govts miraculously came to the convoluted conclusion that somehow the way to stop wind energy was to write laws that actually allow it!!!!

Brilliant!!! 

 I have never understood that logic, but I am sure that is the exact logic Cuomo and the State had in mind to manipulate communities away from prohibiting wind development and into supporting the State renewable agenda!

Arbitrary!

The town of Hounsfield may host a new wind farm on Galloo Island and it appears some town of Houndsfield officials are positive about the proposal.

During the possible siting of the old wind farm proposal on Galloo of several years ago, the town of Henderson sued the town of Houndsfield over the wind farm proposal and siting process.

Below is a quote from a WWNY TV story.

"The town of Henderson has filed a lawsuit against the town of Hounsfield, and it's asking a judge to overturn the planning board's site plan approval for the Galloo Island Wind Farm.

Henderson Town Supervisor Ray Walker says he feels the town of Hounsfield and the Department of Environmental Conservation did not do their due diligence when investigating how the Galloo Island Wind Farm would affect neighboring communities."

The new Galloo wind farm is planned to have 32 turbines approaching 600 ft. high.

So let's fast forward and look at the town of Hounsfield comprehensive plan which was apparently completed in 2014.

Below is a quote from the comp plan of things the town feels are important recommendation priorities. 

“Improve communications with neighboring towns/villages. Communicating with neighboring towns and villages will further improve government efficiency by comparing and combining similar projects, discussing shared concerns/issues and taking subsequent action, governing with a regional vision and aligning goals with North Country REDC Key Strategies.”

Well I guess if Hounsfield is jazzed up about supporting the Galloo Island wind proposal, they better get moving on this important recommendation in their comp plan. 

Because if they support and host the Galloo Island wind farm, they will definitely have a lot of explaining to do to many neighboring  communities, about how they endorsed one of the biggest environmental industrial visual disasters in Eastern Lake Ontario!

And how about those NCREDC Strategies mentioned from the comp plan.  One of the goals in the vision statement from NCREDC is:

"Create the greenest energy economy in the state"

Really?  Yet Hounsfield has not said one thing in their zoning about "supposed green" wind energy siting or regulations...not one!

Seems that Hounsfield can't figure out what it is doing or where it is heading.

Put this all together and Hounsfield land planning seems rather arbitrary on the wind energy issue, yet apparently some of its leaders are willing to allow 32 massive industrial  structures that will impact most of the Eastern Lake Ontario Basin, which could in fact have a dramatic negative impact on neighboring community’s land planning visions.

It still amazes me how when the wind money arrives otherwise rational people quickly lose their minds!