Residents flood Marathon County advisory meeting with concerns about Hub City Wind Farm: property values, wells, wildlife and health cited

Dozens of Marathon County residents used a public comment period to press the county advisory committee for stronger protections or to halt the Hub City Wind Farm proposal.

"We owe our children and future generations a clean, healthy planet," said Dan Barth, one of the first speakers, expressing support for renewable energy but acknowledging strong local concerns. Multiple subsequent speakers opposed the project, arguing turbines would degrade rural character, reduce home values and pose risks to groundwater, wildlife and public safety.

A staff summary presented to the committee said an online survey gathered 1,395 responses (463 from the six towns within the project footprint) and a June 17 public forum had about 151 participants. The top concern countywide was wildlife impacts; within the six towns nearest the proposed turbines the leading concern was impacts to surrounding land and home values.

Specific concerns raised by commenters included:

- Property values and housing market effects: Several residents said homes within a half‑mile or a mile of turbines could lose substantial value and warned that the county could lose future residents and tax base.

- Groundwater and wells: Multiple speakers described local thin glacial drift over fractured bedrock and urged independent baseline water testing, hydrogeologic mapping, and protections against construction‑related impacts (boring, blasting, dewatering).

- Wildlife and migration: Residents reported local marshes and migratory routes for species such as sandhill cranes and whooping cranes, and urged protective buffers and careful timing of migratory studies.

- Health and infrasound: Several commenters cited studies and international examples they said show sleep disturbance, annoyance and other health effects related to low‑frequency sound and shadow flicker; they requested additional health studies before project approvals.

- Roads, emergency response and fire safety: Township officials and volunteers urged enforceable road‑use agreements, clear plans and funding for township road repairs, and provisions to ensure emergency responders can access and rescue workers at turbine sites.

Speakers repeatedly asked the committee to recommend a moratorium while independent studies are completed or to advance strong, enforceable terms in any JDA (for example, independent baseline testing, a victim identification/water supply fund, and a road‑repair escrow). Several commenters also urged the committee to pursue county‑level actions or legal options to protect nonparticipating neighbors.

Not all comments were opposed: a minority said renewable energy investments can help farmers and rural economies and reduce fossil‑fuel dependence. But the public comment record at the meeting was dominated by opponents requesting either a moratorium or tighter, enforceable local protections.

What the committee will do: The advisory panel’s charge is to compile these concerns and send them to the executive committee by mid‑July; the advisory committee will meet again on July 9 to finalize its report. Whether the executive committee will seek a moratorium or what enforceable protections it will request of the developer remains to be decided.

Ending: The transcript shows strong, organized citizen opposition that the advisory committee must now summarize for county leaders to consider alongside the developer’s pending PSC filings and technical studies.