Comments

CapX in the STrib — 1 Comment

  1. 30 December 2008

    David Peterson
    StarTribune

    Mr. Peterson,

    In light of your 12/24 article on the CapX 2020 project, we would like to comment on your view of our “muted response” to the project. Your article obviously favored the utility companies and pro-line county officials, as there was notably absent any interview or statements from residents in the path of the line. Our neighbors in Warsaw, Stanton, and Eureka Townships are vehemently opposed to the CapX line. Many of us have lived here for decades, and our family roots reach back many generations. We work hard on our properties, and live responsibly and conservatively to maintain the surrounding environment’s strong rural character. We oppose the CapX line for many reasons —

    -Need for the line is greatly inflated by the utility companies. The project does not benefit the responsible use of our state’s resources or work toward or in union with Minnesota’s renewable energy goals. Building 345kV power lines from coal plants in states west of Minnesota to serve the electrical needs of big cities east of Minnesota without the study of alternatives, such as conservation and locally sourced renewable power is not responsible.

    -Where is the effort to secure and establish renewable energy sources, rather than continue to contribute to the global climate crisis with additional decades of burning fossil fuels?

    – Exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) has been linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes including substantially increased likelihood of childhood leukemia, neurological effects, cancer, farm animal mortality, and many others. (see attached study)

    – Irrevocable negative effects on sensitive natural resources, including rare and threatened plant species, disruptions in migratory paths for both birds and land animals, and destruction of an already low number of wetlands, woodlots, and other natural corridors.

    -The choice of the utility companies to route this massive line through quiet, rural landscapes, neighborhoods, farms, and towns, when there is an existing (and cheaper) alternative already in place along Highway 52.

    Perhaps a look at both sides of this story would be something to consider for your next article. The residents who will be directly affected by this project are less than pleased.

    Regards,

    Steve & Michelle Johnson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>