July 1 Letters to the Editor | RecordCourier.com

July 1 Letters to the Editor

Kayle Gloistein took ths photoof the sunset after Monday night's rain storm.

Solar plant call disheartening

Editor:

I find it disheartening that in this close community the poor decision of the Douglas County Planning Commission to approve a solar industrial electrical plant in an agriculture / residential zone has put two neighbors pitted against each other.

I attended the planning commission meeting on this matter where Greenstone Renewables, LLC presented a slick slide show showing how no one will see the solar farm from Highway 395. What they did not present was views from locations such as Jacks Valley Ranch Road, Fooothill, or Kingsbury Grade. The solar farm will be visible from there. We were shown serene photos of sheep grazing under the panels. In reality, chain link fence and barbed wire will keep anyone from getting close enough to this plant to enjoy the cute sheep.

I urge the planning commission to take their blinders off and not to listen to Greenstone Renewables campaign for their own profits and consider the facts. Greenstone claims solar electrical plants must be built by power substations. Not true. Drive down Interstate 14 in California (in unpopulated locations) and note they are bringing major power lines and building the substations by current solar plant projects. Perhaps Greenstone is looking after their own profits instead what is good for Carson Valley?

Greenstone also told a truth. Nevada Energy is being forced to build solar plants to meet federal requirements. The State of Nevada has an enormous amount of unpopulated, dry open desert area where the solar plants would not be an eyesore to residents. Carson Valley is a gem in the state of Nevada. Why ruin our gem for bigger profits for Greenstone?

Recommended Stories For You

Ask yourself. Would you want this in your backyard? Let's be stewards to Carson Valley. Contact the Douglas County Board of County Commissioner at 782-9012 or email hsullivan@douglasnv.us. All you need to say is if you agree or disagree with the project. Don't regret not voicing your opinion. The next solar farm may be in your neighbor's pasture.

Joy Lang

Gardnerville

Why build a solar plant?

Editor:

Why would anyone even want to consider putting a huge eyesore, solar plant on Highway 395 in our county? Is there federal money gifting involved? First of all if this power is for California, they should be building the power plant in California. Why are we even thinking about building a power plant in Nevada. I am not against alternative power, but feel there is a lot of BLM land and desert, that would not affect a nice community like Douglas County. We visited the site of the Tonopah, alternative power plant and it is away from town, where it is not in a populated community. This is where these plants should be built. Also this is probably just the begining and once one is built, others will follow. Next will be power stations, transformers and more ugly eyesores. I hope you will vote no on this power plant and any other power plants in our county.

Elinor Lindberg

Gardnerville

Vision doesn't include solar plant

Editor:

I oppose the construction of the Greenstone Renewables industrial solar electric utility power plant on 260 acres between Muller Lane and Genoa Lane in Douglas County, Nevada. I urge the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners to support the appeal of Steve Walker and Mary Walker as well as reject and overrule the narrow decision (4 -3 vote) of the county planning commission regarding the special use permit for this project.

In addition to the plethora of adverse impacts this would have on the community, my opinion is four members of the planning commission were in error.

More than 148,000 ugly, obtrusive, motorized, sunblinding, eagle killing (birds may mistake reflections from large solar panels as water reflections and dive into them) solar panels perched from 7 to 15 feet (allowed by special use permit) above ground level, in addition to loudly buzzing, humming inverters, transformers, and associated electrical apparatus contradict the visual resource protection goal of this plan and do not belong in a "view preservation" area identified by the Valley Vision Plan.

In addition, four of the members ignored the statement on page 2 of the Valley Vision Plan that "scenic landscapes ensure the integrity of naturally functioning ecosystems." No environmental impact or wildlife impact studies were required by the county.

Four members of the planning commission erred when they approved the special use permit with insufficient conditions. For example, my understanding is that there are no irrigation or weed control conditions included in the special use permit. My understanding is that the site owners will lose effluent irrigation privileges with the construction of the proposed industrial solar electric power plant. If there are no irrigation or weed control requirements, the 260 acres can be turned into a giant weed patch that may have an adverse impact on those with allergies or asthma, in addition to a major adverse impact on visual resource protection .

My opinion is that the industrial solar electric utility power plant is the wrong project at the wrong location and should be opposed by county commissioners. My opinion is that this industrial solar electric power plant will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life, property values of Douglas County residents owning less than 160 contiguous acres, tourism and tax revenue, the environment, ecosystems and wildlife. It is also an insult to many of us living in Nevada, that electric power from this project would go to California. This project may set a dangerous precedent for future industrial solar electric power plants, destroying our scenic Carson Valley, while supplying electric power to California, and forfeiting local Douglas County sovereignty to California.

I urge county commissioners to represent our community by voting against the industrial solar electric utility power plant special use permit.

R. Adam

Genoa

Reaping the whirlwind

Editor:

There is an unsettling comparison between two social-cultural viewpoints that is becoming plain for all to see. The two viewpoints are between those who hold abortion to be a right and those who hold to the sanctity of pre-born human life; and between those who hold that same sex marriage ought to be a right and those who believe man/woman union only is and ought to be considered true marriage. Those who hold to traditional man/woman marriage and to the sanctity of life from conception, both call on their belief in a Creator God and His Word to justify their positions. Those who hold that abortion and same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land hold that human choice ought to trump the word of God.

Here is the unsettling part: the pro-choice and pro-life arguments, though strident and adversarial, have been allowed to co-exist in the legal framework of our society; but those who hold that traditional man/woman marriage as ordained by God ought to be protected and honored, have been relentlessly and viciously attacked by those who insist that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land. The ferocity of the attacks that have been unleashed on those that hold to a Biblical standard for marriage has been breathtaking.

It is becoming clear that those who hold that same sex marriage ought to be the new normal have no intention of allowing the kind of open forum for differences that characterizes the pro-life/pro-abortion positions. How sad that states legislatures, state and federal governmental agencies, the courts and corporate America seem all too happy to lend their power and influence to further a liberty-destroying intolerance.

An implacable and intolerant national minority is sowing the wind, and our nation is set to reap the devastating whirlwind.

Charles Evans

Coleville

Solar farm questions

Editor:

Concerning the proposed solar farm and the county commissioners' meeting at 1 p.m. Thursday; some questions: Am I wrong in believing that the sole purpose of this project is to make a few already wealthy individuals a little wealthier? Is it unreasonable to ask that the Douglas County commissioners schedule meetings of this importance at the convenience of their constituents? Are they unaware that the majority of Carson Valley residents are neither rich nor retired and have to go to work every day?

John O'Neill

Minden