An open letter to the Carroll County Quorum Court

Editor's Note: A condensed version of this letter was published in the Aug. 15, 2023, issue of the Carroll County News. The full version of the letter is published here.

August 10, 2023

To the Members of the Carroll County, Arkansas, Quorum Court—

We are citizens of Carroll County, Arkansas, and we represent other citizens of Carroll County who are very concerned about the possibility of industrial wind turbines being constructed in Carroll County.

We are sending you this letter to state our opposition to the construction of such wind turbines. We also want to address what we believe are serious deficiencies in the proposed ordinance to be considered by the Quorum Court on August 15, 2023, addressing the construction of industrial wind turbines in Carroll   County. 

Apparently, a number of citizens are concerned that any ordinance or other action addressing the construction of industrial wind turbines would infringe upon private property rights. We believe in private property rights, as well.

• This argument about private property rights is a red herring. The proposed ordinance is not “zoning,” and the changes to that ordinance we would ask the Quorum Court to consider are not “zoning.”
• All of us have property rights, not just those who have agreed to have industrial wind turbines constructed on their properties.
• The surrounding landowners and other local property owners have the right to not have their properties devalued. Every real estate appraisal study concerning the impact of industrial wind turbines shows that the presence of wind turbines decreases the value of surrounding properties from 10 to 40 percent (and more in some cases), depending on how close the property is to the turbines and the number of turbines constructed. The more turbines and closer together the turbines, the greater the impact on land values.
• No property owner has the right to do anything on their property that damages their neighbor’s property. 
• We are not talking about limiting Carroll County residents from doing what they want on their own land. We are talking about a big multinational corporation (or its subsidiary) coming in for a couple of years, making a lot of money for itself (Scout has estimated that the tax benefits for this project alone will be approximately $100 million), and making a little bit of money for 43 landowners and then leaving. The surrounding property owners and the rest of Carroll County will be paying for the placement of these wind turbines for the next thirty years—or longer.
• Big outside corporations are focused on the bottom line and are answerable to their parent corporations and their shareholders. (Just look at what Tyson’s has done to local farmers in the past week!). If they lose money or find a project to be not as profitable as they initially planned, they aren’t going to continue to operate and maintain wind turbines at a loss. 
• All area landowners will be affected by these proposed wind turbines, not just the landowners who have signed agreements with Scout. Yet, only the landowners who have signed agreements will have the right to protect themselves. Only if the County steps in and establishes suitable criteria for the construction and operation of these wind turbines can area landowners protect their rights.
• The Quorum Court needs to take steps NOW to protect the land values and rights of ALL Carroll County citizens in the future, even those who have signed agreements with Scout.

The five most important elements to address properly in an industrial wind turbine ordinance are: (1) Property Values; (2) Setbacks; (3) Acoustical Regulations; (4) Environmental; and (5) Decommissioning. 

Proposed Ordinance— 

1. We are happy that the Quorum Court recognizes the need to take steps to protect the interests of not only the landowners who have signed agreements with the wind turbine company, but also the property rights of the neighboring property owners and others who might be impacted by the construction and operation of these industrial wind turbines. 
2. There are a lot of issues that should be addressed in framing a proper ordinance. We believe the Quorum Court should adopt an emergency ordinance imposing a SIX-MONTH moratorium on the construction of any wind turbines until a proper ordinance can be researched and adopted. Had Scout brought their intentions forward much earlier, perhaps no such moratorium would be needed. However, they included nondisclosure provisions in their agreements preventing any prior public notice. THEY are responsible for any delay. What’s the rush—let’s get this right!

PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE

• NOISE AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INFLUENCES

  • 65 (8 am to 10 pm) and 55 (10 pm to 8 am) decibels (dB) is too loud. Most other ordinances adopted around the country limit the noise affecting surrounding properties to 35 dB. Using 35dB instead of a higher dB level protects against “infrasound,” which is low frequency sound that can’t be heard but which has been demonstrated to cause harmful health effects to humans.
  • We have reviewed the text of what we believe to be one of the lease agreements. In that agreement, Scout repeatedly requires the landowner to waive any claims for personal injury resulting from any harmful effects from noise or electromagnetic influences. This is stressed several times in the lease agreement we reviewed. There are no protections for adjoining landowners.
  • Why 10 pm and not earlier? Most people are out enjoying the evening long before 10 pm. The normal decibel level of a rural countryside setting is only 20 dB. 
  • The proposed ordinance provides that “no outdoor measurements must be taken while wind speeds exceed 15 mph….” Why? Do the wind turbines increase in noise production when wind speeds increase? If so, why should the turbine be exempt?  
  • About Decibel Levels

    • Increases in dB levels increase exponentially, not linearly. Each increase of 10 dBs is a ten-fold increase in sound intensity. Thus, 30 decibels is 10 times more intense than 20 dBs. 40 dBs is 100 (10 x 10) more intense than 20 dBs. 
    • Normal countryside sound level is 20 dB. 65 dBs is more than 10,000 times more intense than 20 dBs. 55 dBs is more than 1000 times more intense than 20 dBs.
    • Perceived Sound is different. 65 dBs is 80 times louder than 20 dBs. 55 dBs is more than 30 times louder than 20 dBs.

• SHADOW FLICKER AND LIGHTING

  • These are not addressed in the proposed ordinance at all. 
  • We have heard that Scout has promised that these industrial wind turbines will only have lights that will go on when an aircraft is approaching. Is this in writing? Why can't this be included in an ordinance? How low must the aircraft be flying? 30,000 ft?  The county cannot enforce a written agreement unless it is a party to that agreement or unless these lighting requirements are included in some ordinance. Oral promises like this are not worth anything.
  • We understand that the US Air Force is planning to construct a flight training base for F-16s in Fort Smith, and that our area is part of the flight pattern for training flights. Has anyone determined how these wind turbines will affect this plan or our local airports?

• SETBACK-

  • Setback requirements should address not only the distance between turbines and property lines but also the distance between each turbine and another turbine. The closer the turbines are located to each other the greater their negative impact on surrounding properties—noise, land values, shadow flicker, lights, health.
  • The proposed ordinance provides that no wind turbine should be constructed closer than 1.5 times the height from adjoining property owner’s property line and not closer than 1.1 times the height from a county road. We do not think that this protects the County or adjoining property owners sufficiently. Other communities who have passed wind turbine ordinances have required a three-mile separation between turbines in mountainous regions. 
  • The proposed ordinance does not address at all the minimum required distances between the wind turbines. A proper wind turbine ordinance should do this.
  • The proposed ordinance requires a “third party acoustic engineer” to perform a pre-construction noise study, but no requirement that this person be independent of the construction company. The county should have its own acoustic engineer conduct these studies paid for by the company.

• PRE-CONSTRUCTION EVALUATIONS

  • AQUIFERS-In light of the karst ridge on which these turbines are planned, the County should require a pre-construction evaluation by an independent geologist (paid for by the wind turbine company) as to the probable impact on aquifers and the wells of surrounding property owners and possible mitigating measures.
  • LAND VALUES—All industrial wind turbine factories such as proposed here have a detrimental impact on current and future land values of surrounding properties. How will this project impact the surrounding property owners and how will this project impact future real property tax revenues?
  • IMPACT ON EXISTING ROADS. The Quorum Court should make sure that any obligations that Scout has agreed to regarding the impact on existing roads be enforceable and bonded. Is it legal for the County to turn over the management and maintenance of a County Road to a private company?
  • ENVIRONMENTAL/HEALTH— The lease agreement we have reviewed repeatedly require the landowner granting an easement or granting the right to build a wind turbine on their property to waive their rights to claim any negative health impacts. The wind turbine company must know that these wind turbines can have negative health impacts or they would not require such waivers.

• INSURANCE AND SECURITY

  • There is nothing in the proposed ordinance providing for the protection of the wind turbines, such as fencing or other security measure surrounding each wind turbine to prevent unauthorized access.
  • What if some 15-year-olds want to go climbing? We’ve seen some wind turbines in which a person could walk up to it and even go inside and climb it.
  • While the lease agreement may include insurance requirements protecting Scout and the signing landowners, there is nothing enforceable by the County or affected neighboring landowners who may be negatively impacted by the operation of these industrial wind turbines. There is nothing in the proposed ordinance addressing insurance requirements or establishing minimum insurance coverages.  The County should be made a co-insured of any insurance policy and be notified of any proposed lapse in coverage in advance.
  • Because of oil leaks and lightning strikes, wind turbines frequently catch fire. Scout should be required to install appropriate fire suppression controls in each wind turbine to protect against seriously damaging fires. 
  • Unless the County is a party to a written agreement or requires something as part of an ordinance, the County cannot enforce any promises made by the wind turbine company.

• DECOMMISSIONING

  • A proper decommissioning of the wind turbines once they have been damaged or are no longer useful is in the interests not only of the landowner on whose property the wind turbine is located but also is in the interests of the neighboring landowners and the County to protect surrounding property land values (and the resulting real property tax all appropriate fire suppression mechanisms income to the County).
  • Most wind turbine ordinances require a pre-construction plan for decommissioning the wind turbines reviewed and approved by an independent engineer (paid for by the wind turbine company).
  • A proper wind turbine ordinance should require the turbine company to provide a bond NOW covering the anticipated costs of decommissioning plus a contingency for cost overruns, subject to review by the County by an independent qualified engineer at the operator’s expense, and it should allow for future adjustment for inflation and costs not currently anticipated.  The lease agreement we have reviewed does not require a decommissioning bond until 20 years AFTER the turbines become operational—long after the out-of-town company has long gone. What protections exist to even assure the turbine company will even be around in 20 years or won’t go bankrupt? Once again, the County is not a party to that agreement and can’t enforce it, even though decommissioning the wind turbines is clearly in the interests of the adjoining landowners and the County. Under the lease agreement, the size of bond is determined by the wind turbine company not an independent qualified engineer. The lease agreement we reviewed itself contemplates that local county government might require a bond to cover the costs of decommissioning.
  • When wind turbine companies decommission turbines, they have been known to grind up the blades and bury them. The State of Arkansas should not become a dumping ground for used wind turbines on either private or public land.

• MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE

  • A proper wind turbine ordinance should require that any wind turbine be subject to appropriate construction standards and should be inspected on a regular basis, at least annually.

• VIOLATIONS

  • Other ordinances require that any violation should require immediate shutdown until the operator can demonstrate compliance, not just warning letters and fines. 
  • Any ordinance should compel the violator to not only pay a fine but also pay any legal fees and other costs (including but not limited to expert fees) incurred by county associated with compelling compliance.

• ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

  • If the Quorum Court determines that wind turbines will be allowed in Carroll County, we urge the Quorum Court to consider contacting the Arkansas Association of Counties for assistance in developing a suitable ordinance governing the placement, construction and long-term operation of industrial wind turbines. 

We appreciate the Quorum Court taking the time to study this problem carefully and acting in order to protect the interests of ALL the landowners in Carroll County. We oppose the construction of any industrial wind turbines in Carroll County. Please impose a six-month moratorium on the construction of industrial wind turbines in Carroll County so that the matter can be studied properly. Should the Quorum Court decide to allow for their construction, it should adopt a proper wind turbine ordinance for benefit ALL citizens of the County.

Respectfully,

Concerned Citizens of Carroll County

By:

_________________________________

Angela Usrey

_________________________________

E. Richard Williams

_________________________________

Caroline J. Rogers