Representative Elect Ray Franz
PO Box 25
Onekama, MI  49675-0025

November 23, 2010

Dear Editor,

"Lame duck" used to refer to the relatively quiet transition of governance.  Obviously that is not the case this time around.  There's talk of all the rush through bills that may come out of Washington, D.C. and on Tuesday November 10th, Representative Dan Scripps introduced House Bill 6564 and got it on the fast track to approval before he and the democrat majority leave office.

HB 6564 is a lengthy 60 page bill that would allow for the leasing of the bottomlands of the Great Lakes and industrial windmills to be placed into all of the Great Lakes.  It also puts the DNRE in charge of the whole process.

Like so many other controversial bills this one is being pushed through as quickly as possible.  And Scripps has garnered support from Rep. Jeff Mayes, a Bay City democrat, and from two Republican Senators: Patty Birkholz (Saugatuck) and Gerry VanWoerkom (Norton Shores).  That makes it a bipartisan effort and supposedly wonderful - but it is not.  As reported in the Muskegon Chronicle, Birkholz said "Time is of the essence" and "If we fail to act before the end of the year, Michigan will miss its opportunity..."  (Muskegon Chronicle 11/16/2010). It should be noted that all four legislators are done at the end of the year and do not need to answer to the voters -- who in most area polls reject wind towers in the Great Lakes.  Obviously, they know that the will of the people as expressed in the last election would not support such action.

So what is HB 6564?  Besides placing all regulatory powers in the hands of the DNRE, it details the process to identify areas of all the Great Lakes that gigantic wind towers could be placed.  It prescribes the process to lease the bottomlands to industrial wind developers and also lays out the permit process for "site assessment", construction, and decommissioning.  It also prescribes rents and royalties and where the monies should go (hint -- it does not go to the general fund to pay bills).

What are some of the problems?  Let's leave aside the obvious and most important issue of even putting these monsters into the Great Lakes.  I'm no lawyer, but I did notice a few questionable issues that we need answers to.  

First, "The Department shall approve (my emphasis) a parcel for lease..." if they meet four basic requirements, none of which involve input from the public (Section 32413).  Once approval has been granted, then it goes to public auction.  Section 32421 says "The Department shall award leases ... to the highest bid" (emphasis added).  But what if there is only one bidder?  Must a bid of one dollar be accepted?

Second, the bill spells out a lengthy notice process and comment period to get a site assessment permit.  However, Section 32429 (6) requires the Department to approve the application based on the requirements of Section 32113.  In other words, the public input was meaningless and merely for show.  

Third, the bill talks of all the potential hazards (noise levels, electromagnetic fields, pollution from lubricants and chemicals) but is vague on action to mitigate or prevent and there are no penalties prescribed.

Finally there is the decommissioning process, it calls for a plan that meets requirements for removal under Section 32427 (5) (j) which merely calls for a plan.  In other words, it appears to be political doublespeak.   The plan to have a plan does allow, however, for a structure "that has a continuing beneficial use to remain in place ..." In other words, it wouldn't take much to have these cement foundations to be left in the Lakes forever.  That's hardly what I would call decommission and removal.

There are other issues, but you get the picture.  This bill should be given the appropriate time for consideration and reasonable debate, not just rushed through like so many other bad policies over the last few years.  

I don't care if someone wants to put a windmill on their property if it meets local zoning requirements.  However, with all due respect, I'd like to question Representative Scripps on industrializing the Great Lakes.  Throughout all of our debates, he claimed to protect our water against the evil corporations.  These corporations provide hundreds of good paying jobs and the tiny fraction (.025%) of water that is withdrawn is easily replenished by Mother Nature.   Yet now he proposes hundreds of enormous industrial windmills as close as three miles from shore.  And parts of those structures may permanently scar our bottomlands.  The late Paul Harvey used to call that "selective indignation".  Regardless of where you stand on wind energy, we must not make this "mistake in the lake".