A Texas state appeals court the other day upheld a ruling dismissing a nuisance lawsuit filed by property owners unhappy with a big wind farm, holding that unwelcome "aesthetical impact" doesn't support such a claim.
The plaintiffs had complained that the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center reduced both the scenic beauty of their area and their enjoyment of their property. According to the court's 10-page opinion, they had conceded they couldn't base their case simply on disliking the wind farm. They argued, however, that aesthetics could be considered as one of the conditions that creates a nuisance. Jurors, they contended, were entitled to consider the farm's "visual impact" along with descriptions of the towers' blinking lights, their flickering shadows and noise.
But FPL Energy, which owns and operates the 421-turbine farm through a subsidiary, successfully argued that no Texas court had ever recognized a nuisance claim based on aesthetics. Beauty, the company maintained, is "necessarily subjective." It argued that "giving someone an aesthetic veto over a neighbor's use of his land would be a recipe for legal chaos," according to the opinion.
Justice Rick Strange, who wrote the ruling for a unanimous three-judge panel, determined that the plaintiffs' "emotional response" to the loss of their view was at the foundation of their case -- and he concluded that didn't fly legally. However, he seemed to empathize with them:
"Unobstructed sunsets, panoramic landscapes, and starlit skies have inspired countless artists and authors and have brought great pleasure to those fortunate enough to live in scenic rural settings. The loss of this view has undoubtedly impacted plaintiffs".
Strange found that the state's courts have balanced competing interests by limiting nuisance actions based on lawful activity "to instances in which the activity results in some invasion of the plaintiff's property and by not allowing recovery for emotional reaction alone." He continued:
Altering this balance by recognizing a new cause of action for aesthetical impact causing an emotional injury is beyond the purview of an intermediate appellate court. Alternatively, allowing plaintiffs to include aesthetics as a condition in connection with other forms of interference is a distinction without a difference. Aesthetical impact either is or is not a substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land. If a jury can consider aesthetics as a condition, then it can find nuisance because of aesthetics. Because Texas law does not provide a nuisance action for aesthetical impact, the trial court did not err by granting FPL's motion for partial summary judgment and by instructing the jury to exclude from its consideration the aesthetical impact of the wind farm.
The case comes out of a state that is among the nation's leaders in wind generation, and is likely to face much more development, if people like T. Boone Pickens have their way. This week's state ruling wasn't even the only court decision this month favorable to a Texas wind farm project in a case in which aesthetics was raised.
Aspects of renewable energy projects are also facing some opposition from environmental groups elsewhere, as Climate Law Update has noted before, for a variety of reasons. Solar projects as well are facing scrutiny, including a major federal effort to assess their environmental impacts on public lands.
But as Environmental Capital, the Wall Street Journal's environmental blog, which wrote about the FPL case this week, put it: "Among all the other hurdles facing renewable energy, from economics to technology, will the real bogeyman be aesthetics?" EC noted other locations where similar objections have been raised, and it cited the American Wind Energy Association, which has characterized a turbine about 1,000 feet away as approximately as loud as a refrigerator.
In talking to a local reporter, one of the plaintiffs cited money and politics as behind the losses suffered by wind power critics. The combination "would prevent anything from being a negative with wind energy in the state of Texas," plaintiff Patricia LaPoint told the Abilene Reporter-News.
FPL itself had little to say about the case. In an e-mail to Climate Law Update, company spokesman Steve Stengel said only: "We're obviously pleased with the decision and think the court got it right."
--Dennis Pfaff of Thelen