A group of residents here has stepped up its battle to stop ten wind turbines from being erected near Arthur – and it is using the courts to do it.
Preserve Mapleton Incorporated filed on Jan. 27 a judicial appeal of the Ministry of Environment’s approval of the project.
That means its appeal to the Environmental Appeals Tribunal will be delayed until after the court hearing the group hopes will halt the turbine proposal by NextEra Energy on land southwest of Arthur.
Mapleton council is still considering its own judicial appeal.
“Our group has been working with Mapleton council throughout the entire process from when the project was first proposed,” said John Krul, spokesman for Preserve Mapleton Incorporated.
“They have always been receptive and supportive from the start with the motion they passed and presented to the Ontario government in 2009 asking them to put a moratorium on the erecting of turbines until a proper third party health study was done to determine the proper and safe distance to people’s homes and in the case of this township – their farm businesses and livelihoods.”
He added, “We had already decided when and if the project was approved that we would go ahead with legal action.”
Krul said an Environmental Tribunal Appeal filed by a First Nations group is important, too.
“That the HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) has filed its own appeal shows just how important it is for the government and the wind industry corporations to consult effectively with all parties involved and to properly address their particular concerns,” Krul said.
“The very fact that two separate appeals were filed for this project should be a good indicator that the Green Energy Act violates everyone’s rights for meaningful input and that the approval by the MOE was premature.”
Krul said it is difficult for him to understand the turbine approval in Mapleton.
“Wellington County is one of the leading milk producing counties in Ontario and about 50% of the milk producers in Wellington are located in Mapleton Township. Why do we want to shoehorn turbines into that?”
Preserve Mapleton Incorporated’s lawyer Eric Gillespie said in an interview last week that the date for the judicial review is April 2.
The Advertiser attempted to contact Next Era officials for a comment but several telephone calls over two days were not returned.
The Mapleton group sought the judicial appeal for three main reasons:
– it does not believe the consultation required in the Green Energy Act has been met;
– it was misinformed by the company during those consultations; and
– there is more archeological work required before the application can be approved.
The Mapleton project is only the third to undergo the appeal process, Gillespie said.
The NextEra project must now also deal with First Nations and the Haudenosaunee Development Institute is involved.
Both groups are appealing the renewable energy approval. It allows for the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 4 wind facility with nine 2.3 megawatt wind turbine generators and one 2.22MW wind turbine generator, with a total name plate capacity of 22.9MW.
Gillespie said he is encouraged by recent campaigns against the wind industry. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture pulled its support of turbines and, near Stayner, a family selling its farm has sued not only a wind turbine company but also the host farmer for devaluing its property. Offers dried up on that farm after the turbine project was announced.
He also said Health Canada, which was on the verge of adopting Ontario’s rules for setbacks of turbines had late last week announced it will not adopt Ontario’s regulations.
At the tribunal, Preserve Mapleton Incorporated is appealing several parts of the renewable energy approval.
It states engaging in the renewable energy project will cause serious harm to human health, including:
– previous projects in Ontario using the same or similar sound levels and distance setbacks have caused serious health effects in certain individuals, and the NextEra facility could cause the same effects;
– previous projects have demonstrated ice throw is a significant issue that, if not addressed, will cause serious harm to human health. The facility as approved has failed to provide any analysis of wind throw impacts, and will cause serious harm to human health due to ice throw;
– the ministry has no ability to control exceeding approved audible sound levels emitted by the turbines, and because there are no approved protocols the facility will be permitted to operate at any sound level, thereby causing serious harm to human health;
– the approval does not comply with ministry’s statement of environmental values (SEVs). In particular, the ministry director failed to consider the economic impacts of the project, the cumulative effects on the environment, or the precautionary principle and approach, and has failed to provide for transparency, timely report or enhanced ongoing engagement with the public. The director’s failure to consider SEV principles is causing great stress (serious harm to human health) for residents; and
– the approval was issued without resolution of the scientific uncertainty surrounding the human health effects of low frequency noise emissions from industrial wind turbines.
The group is requesting that the Environmental Review Tribunal revoke the MOE director’s decision to issue the approval, and is seeking a stay of that decision.
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute is appealing the approval on other grounds, including:
– the director’s decision to approve the NextEra project by way of the Renewable Energy Approval will have a negative impact and encroach upon the treaty rights of Haudenosaunee under the Nanfan Treaty of 1701;
– the director failed to uphold the honour of the crown in relation to the encroachment upon the treaty rights of the Haudenosaunee;
– the director’s decision will cause serious harm to human health, or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment as understood in the context of the treaty rights of the Haudenosaunee;
– the director has failed to undertake any engagement in the nature of consultation and accommodation in relation to granting the approval; and
– the director failed to establish or adopt a clear and transparent policy approach to upholding the honour of the crown in relation to established treaty rights versus rights which are merely asserted and unproven.
In support of the appeal, the group cited the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (in particular Article 19), the Nanfan Treaty of 1701, as well as the numerous other cases.
The group is also seeking a stay of the decision.
