Letter regarding wind farm moratorium

[Elk County Farm Bureau]

The following was sent to Governor Brownback, Kansas legislators and area newspapers  to voice our concerns about the wind farm moratorium. Please share your views with your county Farm Bureau and Kansas Farm Bureau -- We are the Voice of Agriculture!

Governor Sam Brownback's recent decision to restrict wind farm development in the southeast corner of Kansas not only invalidates his promise to help the area boost its economic development, it raises a warning flag about the reach of state powers.  Several aspects of the governor's "voluntary moratorium" are cause for concern and need to be addressed.

First, elected officials from the counties involved were not notified of any meeting taking place, nor given the opportunity to express the views of constituents, until after the fact.  Many county government leaders learned about the meeting the same way the general public did: by reading an article in the newspaper or hearing about it on the evening news. Those directly affected by potential wind farms – landowners in the counties considered to be in the newly designated Tallgrass Heartland-- had no voice in this matter. While this directly impacts the southeastern portion of the state, everyone in Kansas should take note that under this governor's authority, property rights are apparently up for grabs without any form of legislation taking place.

Governor Brownback earned votes from many rural Kansans based on his pledge to pursue development in economically depressed areas. His development of ROZs (rural opportunity zones) is a positive step toward this goal. Yet his moratorium squelches one of the most economically viable developments available to Kansans: wind energy. He cannot even use the reasoning that the turbines are an eyesore in a region attempting to lure tourists, as there are no restrictions on cell towers, transmission towers or oil derricks dotting the landscape– only on this method of producing clean, renewable energy. We also point out that the wind energy development typically requires no financial assistance from the state and, in fact, has the potential to generate significant revenue for the county and state coffers.

Our county association has no bias against tourism. We also are proud of our farmer/rancher members who are fine stewards of this prairie land we all love and wish to preserve.  We believe the region designated as the Flint Hills (which until this moratorium was announced did not include Greenwood, Elk or Chautauqua counties; in fact, more than 6,000 square miles of land now fall under the new designation) play a vital environmental role and deserve protection. However, there is already evidence (the Elk River project near Beaumont, for example) that wind farms can be successful tourism destinations for those who enjoy bicycling, horseback riding, and hiking. The two ventures need not be mutually exclusive. Surely they can co-exist with proper planning and be of benefit to the entire region.

Our disappointment lies not so much with the reasoning behind the governor's decision as much as his disregard for the property owners who have the right to decide how their land is used – or not used.  The moratorium effectively denies the counties in the region an opportunity for economic growth through PILOT funds (payment in lieu of taxes) to the host county. Elk County alone expects a 20-year revenue of $60 million to government and private parties. These funds will help our struggling county keep its figurative head above water and perhaps provide tax relief to its citizens. Each county in Kansas should have that same potential for income and the chance to make development decisions for itself.

We are urging the governor to consider the stranglehold his decision places on rural development in this region. We request that the decision be overturned and that a new summit be called – one that includes all entities affected by the outcome. Compromises can be reached, but only when all sides of the issue are represented.

Respectfully submitted,
Bo Downing, President
And Board of Directors
Elk County Farm Bureau Association

[Judy Harder]

Way to go Bo..............good read and if you need a voter to sign a petition you may call on me.
Sic em!

[Wilma]

Same here.  Just let me know.

[Janet Harrington]

Good letter, Bo, and I will sign a petition if one is made.

[Patriot]

I agree that the Governor erred badly in this deal.  This was, after all, a deal made by mutual agreement with the big (and some multinational) energy developers.  It as also the enlargement of an existing agreement started by Kathleen Sebelius.

Where is the outrage at those developers who so readily and voluntarily bought into this deal or at the Democrat governor who set the precedent for this several years ago?  Just curious.

[srkruzich]

I agree that the Governor erred badly in this deal.  This was, after all, a deal made by mutual agreement with the big (and some multinational) energy developers.  It as also the enlargement of an existing agreement started by Kathleen Sebelius.

Where is the outrage at those developers who so readily and voluntarily bought into this deal or at the Democrat governor who set the precedent for this several years ago?  Just curious.

chirp chirp chirp

[srkruzich]

[Wilma]

What Governour Sebelius started didn't affect us at the time.  It was confined to the Flint Hills, which didn't affect us as we are not in the Flint HIlls.  As I understand it, Elk County, etc. was made a part of the Flint Hills just recently, by our present governour for the purpose of including Elk County, etc. in the moratorium.

My question is:  If we were not a part of the Flint Hill area then, how can we be now.  Did we have a giant earthquake that moved the strata and we were unaware of it?

[Patriot]

What Governour Sebelius started didn't affect us at the time.

NIMBY?  If the principle of applies here, then it applied there.  The Flint Hills landowners are no less protected in their property rights than are the folks south oh US 400.... are they?  Or are our property rights somehow more important than those in the rest of the country? 

And again, what of those on the OTHER side of that voluntary agreement?  It took two to tango.

[Wilma]

This half of the two wasn't invited to the dance.