An invitation to the Conservation Law Foundation
Join those who want to protect a natural resource held in public trust.

A letter to Stephanie Pollack, acting president of the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental advocacy organization, regarding the proposed wind farm on Nantucket Sound:

In the past, our editorial board has enjoyed working with CLF on a variety of issues that have been important not only to the Cape and islands, but to the region as a whole. In every case, the overriding value that we both share is the protection of natural resources, especially those held in public trust.

In the early 1980s, our editorial board strongly supported CLF in its efforts to halt offshore oil drilling on Georges Bank.

In 1991, the Times again supported CLF when it filed suit to revoke an Army Corps permit for a large offshore aquaculture project in New England. CLF correctly argued then that the government should first establish rules for sound management of offshore waters.

CLF agreed with then-U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, who questioned the appropriateness of the Army Corps' review of a major offshore project under Section 10 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act, the same law being used to review the Cape Wind proposal.

"The Act gives the Corps authority to approve permits for construction of structures that may impede the navigability of U.S. waters," Studds said in 1992. "Open for question, however, is whether Section 10 was ever intended to authorize the Corps to grant what is, in essence, exclusive occupancy rights for an area...of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (out to 200 miles) for a private commercial enterprise. The standards governing the issuance of a Section 10 permit bear little relevance to the broader public policy issues associated with such an undertaking, further dictating great caution in any attempt to extend Section 10 authorities into areas they don't belong."

Today, however, the CLF is willing to allow the Army Corps, under Section 10, to conduct the review process for Cape Wind.

An inadequate process

We continue to maintain that the Section 10 process for offshore development, whether it be for aquaculture or wind farms, is inadequate and inappropriate, and we're asking you today to reconsider your position.

We understand that you have not taken a position on the merits of the Cape Wind proposal, but that you believe the environmental review process should proceed. You oppose the moratorium proposed by Atty. Gen. Thomas Reilly.

For argument's sake, let's assume the Army Corps finds no major environmental effects and grants Cape Wind a permit to build the wind farm. If that happens, our nation's first major offshore wind farm project will have been approved by a flawed process that allowed the developer, not the government and the public, to choose the appropriate site.

In Denmark, it was the government that first zoned its ocean for offshore development. The public decided the appropriate and inappropriate sites to build wind farms. Long ago, the Danish government carefully mapped the ocean, identifying potential areas to locate wind turbines so they wouldn't mar the shoreline's beauty, except in industrial areas.

Explore industrial areas

Do you really believe that if all the stakeholders in this Cape Wind process were involved in choosing appropriate sites for offshore wind development in Massachusetts that the middle of Nantucket Sound would be one of them? We hope that Massachusetts will become a leader in offshore wind energy production, but has the state or federal government fully evaluated the potential to build wind farms off our more industrial areas, such as Lynn, Fall River or New Bedford?

Would CLF allow the Section 10 process to proceed if a developer proposed a floating casino or an liquid natural gas facility in Nantucket Sound? Granted, they are different uses, but they point out the same underlying principles -- the absence of zoning, the absence of a competitive leasing process, the absence of property rights.

All of these issues are currently being reviewed by the U.S Commission on Ocean Policy. But it's entirely possible that the Army Corps will approve a major industrial project on Nantucket Sound and elsewhere before the commission has drafted its recommendations and before Congress has developed a national ocean policy for the United States.

It's as if we have already allowed the developer to round second base without even tagging first base. It's as if we are allowing private developers to build the foundation of our nation's wind energy policy before our government has had a chance to provide a blueprint.

Develop ocean policy

We should respect the intent of the U.S. Oceans Act, which was designed to allow Congress to develop a comprehensive ocean policy that would strike a fair balance between economic, environmental and social interests.

Finally, we hope that you will join us in fighting to protect Nantucket Sound because we believe it is the equivalent of a national park. It's a national jewel that is not in our back yard - it is in our front yard. To us, building a forest of windmills on Nantucket Sound is akin to building a line of windmills along the south rim of the Grand Canyon.

A century ago, few people understood the significance of conserving land. Today, there are nearly 400 national parks, but few people understand the importance of protecting certain coastal areas from development, including Nantucket Sound. National marine sanctuaries help preserve this last frontier.

We hope you will join us in saving Nantucket Sound from commercial development.

(Published: June 1, 2003)