Residents urge Humboldt County to reject wind turbines, citing safety, farming and noise concerns

Multiple residents used the public-comment period at the Humboldt County board meeting on Dec. 15 to urge county leaders to oppose local wind-energy projects.

"I really would beg of you guys not to let the windmills in," said Gavin Johnson, a resident who identified himself during public comment. Johnson and several other speakers raised similar concerns: that turbines would lower nearby property values, damage seed-corn production, and create safety and fire-response challenges for local fire departments.

One commenter cited research he said covered 2016 to 2023 and asserted that about $18,000,000,000 had been spent to subsidize wind projects over that period. Another speaker referenced Corn Belt Power and said his understanding was turbines deliver "26% reliability," using the figure to argue turbines are not a dependable primary power source. Those assertions were made during public comment and were not substantiated with supporting documentation in the meeting record.

Speakers also raised operational safety concerns specific to tall turbines: how a worker or a person incapacitated on a tower would be rescued and whether local volunteer fire departments have equipment or training to fight turbine fires. Public commenters mentioned noise (including "low-frequency" sound) and potential bird mortality as additional local impacts.

County staff and board members responded that planning and zoning remains under a moratorium regarding new wind permits and that the county's comprehensive plan is nearing completion. Staff said planning and zoning will review the completed chapter and that the county could include wind-energy rules either as part of an updated general zoning ordinance or as a standalone wind ordinance.

The board did not vote on wind-energy policy at this meeting. Several commenters asked the board to take a formal stance; the board's public statements during the session noted the moratorium and the pending comprehensive-plan and zoning work but did not produce an immediate policy change.

The transcript records the claims and concerns raised and the board's process status; it does not include independent evidence for the numeric claims cited by commenters. Planning staff indicated further review will continue through the planning and zoning process.