|
Opinion
Snow Days Bring Worries for Adults
What Is Real Purpose of Animal Law?
Let's Get State Police Out on the Road Again
It's Time To Fork Over All that Unspent Pork
Kudos and Thanks for Quick Response
Edgewood Parade Turned Out Nicely
AYP Status Doesn't Tell Whole Story
Letters to the Editor
Editorial: Hibbs Has Done Job of 2 Mayors
Editorial: Law Revised for Problem Animals
More
Opinion
|
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Plant Opponents
Have It Wrong
AS THE DATE for the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) hearing on the proposed Estancia biomass plant air permit approaches, it is interesting to observe the flood of hyperbole and inaccuracy that continues to typify the debate on this issue.
A typical example can be seen in some of the discussion in the recent Albuquerque Journal guest editorial by Bryan Bird of Forest Guardians. Echoing similar pieces both by Mr. Bird and other opponents of the project, the editorial paints a grim— and almost completely inaccurate— picture of biomass plants in general and this project in particular.
Mr. Bird's depiction of the project appears based on one fatally flawed premise: that the associated thinning activities would be conducted without appropriate guidelines, limitations and oversight. Mr. Bird knows better. The New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles were developed in response to concerns associated with biomass-related thinning projects.
According to the U.S. Forest Service Web site, "The New Mexico Biomass Evaluation Task Force announced the publication of 18 principles for the design and implementation of forest restoration projects that would produce small-diameter wood used to fuel biomass power plants and other wood utilizing facilities." Among the 13 participating entities were the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the N.M. State Forestry Office and the N.M. State Land Office— agencies which, collectively, would be expected to oversee the thinning efforts. Other participants included PNM, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Forest Guild, the Center for Biological Diversity, Restoration Solutions and— perhaps most significantly— Forest Guardians, represented by Mr. Bird.
The resulting principles, according to multiple sources including the Forest Guardians Web site, "represent the 'zone of agreement' where controversy, delays, appeals and litigation are significantly reduced." Since Forest Guardians was part of the development of these principles, which WWPP has publicly adopted, there should be little concern that associated thinning projects would be conducted irresponsibly, that forests would be clear-cut, that old-growth trees would be harvested or that forests would be "mined" beyond the point of sustainability.
Arguments that WWPP has not completed a plan for thinning ring hollow given the fact that formal requirements for commercial use of piñon and juniper have not yet been promulgated, a situation not mentioned by project opponents. It would seem to make little sense to complete a plan before the regulations are in place.
It is hard to believe that Forest Guardians is naíve enough to believe that "the answers will point directly to solar and wind as the only viable, long-term solutions currently available," as stated in Mr. Bird's recent editorial. Solar and wind interests realize that, while these may be the most renewable energy sources, problems exist with respect to their ability to provide uninterrupted power. That is the reason that the renewable energy portfolio must include other sources that can produce power at night, or when the wind is not blowing.
Another potential exaggeration involves the plant's water use. The plant will purchase water from existing water rights owners in the area. Given the plant's location, these would likely be agricultural interests. Since the water would be "diverted" from agricultural to consumptive use, the allowable pumping associated with the given water rights would likely be reduced by roughly half of the amount allowed for agricultural use. The approximately 450 acre-feet per year for which WWPP has applied may also be offset by recycling processes associated with the adjacent greenhouse, with as much as 50 percent reduction in evaporated water should the greenhouse operation expand, according to WWPP.
Air emissions from the plant are projected to be well within the regulatory limits promulgated to protect the public health. Project opponents make much ado over the fact that emissions are measured in tons per year, but this is common practice, and the quantities here are not "huge" when compared with many other operations (energy and otherwise) operating legally throughout the U.S. Other claims that the plant will cause acid rain, that it will emit more pollutants than forest fires, and that biomass plants are nearly as polluting as coal plants are similarly without merit.
It should be noted that, while the opponents of this plant have not hesitated to raise the specter of air quality degradation, they have yet to provide any real-world examples to back up their position that the plant will harm air quality in the Estancia Valley.
It is disappointing to see that the opponents of this project seem so willing to resort to exaggeration, incomplete information, misquoting of legitimate studies, personal attacks, and in some cases apparently outright embellishment to mount their opposition. Forest Guardians' opposition is especially disappointing, given the fact that this project is intended to work within the guidelines they helped to create. Regardless, the upcoming EIB meeting is intended to resolve one issue and one issue only: whether or not the air permit for the project should be issued.
It can only be hoped that it will not be allowed to turn into yet another referendum on the benefits or detriments of forest thinning projects or projected water use, issues that are appropriately resolved in other contexts. Perhaps we may also hope that future discourse can be conducted without the inaccuracies, aspersions and personal rancor we have seen in discussions to date.
JOHN WECKERLE
Edgewood
Money Tree Aids
Victims of Fire
ON JULY 26 Ray and Wanda Morris of Estancia lost everything they owned in a tragic fire that was sparked by lightning, beginning in their garage.
The couple have been married 61 years and this had been their home for many years. Everything in their home was a memory.
Some friends and neighbors would like to help them out by hosting a "community money tree" for them on Sunday, Aug. 19, at the pavilion at Estancia's Arthur Park from 2 to 4 p.m.
This way they can purchase the items they need to begin the process of replacing what they need.
Please come have refreshments and greet them and let them know just how much this "community" truly cares for them!
For more information, please call 384-5422, 384-2875 or 384-2489.
CAROL COOK
DIANA ADAY
Estancia
|
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
