Proposed changes to the wind farm ordinance (long)

The Jasper County Plan Commission is expecting a big turnout at its next meeting, scheduled to be held next Monday at the Fairgrounds rather than the Court House. On the agenda is a discussion of revisions to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding windmills. The windmill part of the UDO was revised in November so it was a surprise to see the item back up for discussion. I heard that those who oppose wind farms were the source of the changes, which are being brought to the Commission by its chairman, Gerrit DeVries.

I stopped by the County Planning office to see what changes were being proposed. I got a ten pages document with the existing ordinance and proposed changes. In looking at the changes, my past life with economics intruded. Economists like things that increase value and dislike things that decrease value. When we make decisions for ourselves, we try to do so in ways that increase value, so if we spend $10 to buy a product, we are acting as if all other possible uses of that $10 have less value to us. However, there are cases in which costs of an action are not taken into account but rather passed on to other people. These situations involve what economists have named "externalities" and they are the primary justification for zoning and other restrictions on land use. Another possible justification of regulation is to protect people from themselves, but many and perhaps most economists have dislike paternalism justifications.

With that in mind, let us see what changes are proposed. There are a lot of them, so this is a long post.

20.30.140
The old language says that the overlay district is to be applied to A1 and A2 districts. The proposal eliminates A1 and A2 and substitutes A3. A3 is intensive agriculture and is mostly used for CAFOs. I do not think this change was thought out. It suggests that thousands of acres would have to be A3 for a wind farm.
A new section is added: D. Special Exception: "The application for the WFO District to any lot does not relieve the requirement for a Special Exception for each utility-grade wind turbine location." What is the point of the rest of the section if this is included?

20.30.170
New section: "B 4. Top Soil Preservation Plan: There shall be an installation plan approved by the Zoning Administrator that adequately preserves and provides for the restoration of topsoil for all staging and construction activities." I do not see externalities involved here. Why should the individual land owners be responsible for making sure that this is included in any contracts they sign? In a letter to the editor of the Rensselaer Republican arguing for the proposed changes, three concerned citizens of Jasper County state, “We are not trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their property, as long as what they doesn’t infringe on our own property rights.” This provision does tell people what they can or cannot do with their property even though it does not infringe on other's property rights.

There are a lot of changes in setbacks, 2030.170 I. Setbacks are justified by externalities. The proper setback distances should be determined by studies and analysis of how much surrounding landowners are affected. The distances are not something that economics can say much about.

2030.170 I 2 a. Setback from property lines: "a.... minimum of one and one-half times the hub height of the turbine from any property line of a participating landowner and a non on-site, above ground utility and each utility grade wind turbine system shall be located the greater of 2640 feet or six and one-half (6.5) times the hub hight of the turbine from any non-participating property line." I do not see why there should be any setback required from the property line of a participating landowner. They have signed a contract with the wind-turbine operator, so there are no external effects here. Further, the next section seem to directly contradict the restriction on setbacks to property lines of participating landowners: "Utility-grade wind turbines within a wind farm may encroach into property line setbacks between two (2) participating owner's properties."

c. Changes setbacks for on-site buildings. (I am not sure why these setbacks are in the existing code--there seems to be no external effects. If I want a wind turbine next to my house, why should I not be allowed to have one there?) The proposal changes language from tip-of-the-blade height to the hub height and it is not clear to me what the effect of that is.

d. Setbacks from Off-Site Land Use. There are multiple sections here and some big changes.

 d i. The minimum setback to an existing residential dwelling is changed from 1000 feet to 1 mile. The change adds that the dwelling be non-participating. It strikes out the following: "The owner of an existing, neighboring single-family dwelling unit may grant permission, in writing or recorded with the Jasper County Recorder, waiving the setback requirement to their home. However, under no circumstances shall a utility grade wind turbine system be closer than 1.1 times the tip height to a single family dwelling." At the presentation on wind farms at the June Plan Commission meeting, speaker Kevon Martis argued for long setbacks but said that people within the setbacks should be allowed to grant waivers. Striking this passage seems to be contrary to the approach he advocated, and he was a speaker invited by those critical of wind farms. Maybe the thought behind the change is that any such users should become participating land owners.

d ii. Changes 1000 feet to 1 mile for land zoned for residential or institution use.

d iii. Changes 1320 feet to 1 mile for land platted for a subdivision and strikes the qualifier "with ten (10) or more lots."

Adds d iiii. "A minimum of 1,000 feet from any non-participating private tile of [sic] drain.

Adds d v. "A minimum of two (2) miles from the Iroquois and Kankakee rivers."

Adds d vi. "A minimum of three and one-half (3.5) miles from any existing Confined Animal Feeding Operation."

f. Existing language sets a no-turbine zone for the Jasper-Pulaski Fish and Wildlife area as north of CR 400N and east of CR 100W. The proposed changes set a setback of 6 miles from any public conservation lands. (The existing setbacks were set in April, 2016.)

In section K 1. Noise. The existing code sets a limit of 60 decibels modeled to a residence. The proposal changes that to 35 decibels at the property line.

New Section k 6. "Shadow Flicker: "The flickering effect caused by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required signal light or sunlight combined with the turning of the rotor shaft shall not be permitted on an off-site, non-participating property." Does that mean if one can see the signal lights, the turbine is in violation?

Section O Drainage
 1. Requires that any drainage within 1000 feet of any wind turbine location or construction activities be inspected and scoped prior to and after installation, with expense born by operator.

Section P
2 Some minor changes to road planning and usage.

Section Q. A new addition:
"7. Surety for Damages Related to Decommissioning. The operator of any utility-grade wind turbine shall secure and provide a performance bond or submit and escrow deposit in the amount of 1,000,000 per turbine to endure [sic] the proper decommissioning and removal of the turbine, as well as restoration of top soil prior to installation."

Meanwhile, Benton and White Counties continue adding turbines with little or no public discontent. The latest addition to the Meadow Lake Wind Farm will have turbines that reach 570 feet. It was highlighted in Saturday's Rensselaer Republican.

Property rights are society's way of regulating usage of property. They come with restrictions and those restrictions often are due to externalities. Externalities work both ways. If we give people living in the countryside the right to erect tall wind turbines, we infringe on the perceived rights of neighbors to quiet, scenic views, and whatever other damages they believe the existence of wind turbines causes them. However, if we give the neighbors the right to quiet, scenic views and avoidance of other problems caused by wind turbines, we infringe on the perceived rights of those who want to erect wind turbines on their property. Economist Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize in large part for realizing in the imaginary world in which negotiation and transactions were costless, it would not matter how those property rights were allocated in deciding whether the wind turbines were built or not.