CLEVELAND, Ohio — The first freshwater wind-energy installation in North America could be coming to Ohio. While agreeing that a move to cleaner sources of energy is important, opponents say there's not enough evidence that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks.

Final approval could come soon for Icebreaker, a six-turbine wind installation in Lake Erie, eight miles off Cleveland's shoreline. Lake Erie Foundation board member John Lipaj noted it's actually a pilot project for a massive, 1,500 wind turbine installation throughout the lake. The developer has said each turbine holds about 400 gallons of industrial lubricants, and Lipaj said that’s just not worth the risk.

"Lake Erie, which is the source of drinking water for 11 million people, isn't the place to be building an industrial wind facility,” Lipaj said. “Build the wind turbines onshore; build them where farmers need that extra income. It just makes so much more sense and it's better for the lake."

Supporters say the project will create jobs and renewable energy, and note that no significant environmental impacts were found in the Environmental Assessment. Lipaj countered that many studies on which those conclusions are based, were provided by the developer’s own consultants. He believes that a more in-depth study, known as an Environmental Impact Statement should be required.

The Ohio Power Siting Board could decide on the project at a hearing February 21.

Among sticking points in the months-long negotiations between the board and the developers were measures to protect and monitor migrating birds and bats. Research director with the Black Swamp Bird Observatory, Mark Shieldcastle, explained that more than 1 million birds use the area for migration and foraging habitat every year.

"The central basin of Lake Erie has been designated as a globally important bird area because of the concentrations of some certain species,” Shieldcastle said. “So it's extremely important to birds and it's not a place where you start putting up obstructions without good knowledge as to what that risk is."

There are also concerns that the 480-foot-high turbines could ruin the aesthetics of lake communities, and potentially impact tourism dollars. Elected officials and labor unions support the project based on the developer’s claim that 500 local jobs will be created. However, Lipaj notes the developer’s own studies show that Icebreaker would only lead to nine permanent jobs. He said there's a misconception about who will truly benefit.

"This is really about a Norwegian company reaping U.S. taxpayer subsidies,” he said. “It's not just $55 million in Department of Energy subsidies, but there are also production tax credits and investment tax credits."

Supporters say Icebreaker is bringing positive attention to the region, and could make Northern Ohio a leader in the booming offshore wind-energy sector. But Lipaj points out that cities along the Atlantic Seaboard where offshore wind makes sense, already have the edge in becoming the manufacturing hubs.



get more stories like this via email

A piece of Arizona legislation, with bipartisan backing, is aiming to bring better oversight and protections of groundwater, across five basins in rural Arizona.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Priya Sundareshan - D-Tucson - explained that the Rural Groundwater Management Act of 2025 would create water-management programs that would have a say over conservation efforts, and would strive to reduce groundwater use while improving the state of aquifers.

SB 1425, and its mirrored bill in the House, would also create local councils to monitor the basins.

Sundareshan said the bill is intended to protect folks from out-of-state entities that flock to Arizona for its lack of regulation, ultimately leaving communities dry.

"Residents whose wells are going dry, their foundations are cracking because the groundwater has been depleted so much that the aquifers are settling," said Sundareshan. "You have large-scale industrial agriculture that has moved in because of the complete lack of regulation."

Similar legislation failed last legislative session.

Sundareshan recalled that under the Republican majority at the state Legislature, the bill has not yet been heard in committee, and this week is the last week for such action.

She added that people's ability to continue living in small Arizona towns depends on water availability, and called on policymakers to act.

New data finds that most Arizonans - about 72% - believe inadequate water supply is a serious problem, according to the 2025 Conservation in the West Poll.

Sundareshan said the last time significant water legislation was passed in the state was in 1980, with the Groundwater Management Act.

"But it only really protected the urban areas, and it set up a process for further management of other areas in Arizona," said Sundareshan. "But it only created two tools - the active management area approach, and the other tool created is the INAs, the irrigation non-expansion areas."

INAs are created when the Arizona Department of Water Resources determines there is not enough groundwater in a given area to provide a "reasonably safe supply for irrigation," on cultivated lands, therefore having no need to establish an active management area.

Sundareshan said these tools cap the expansion of agricultural acreage in the state, but don't do much to manage the consumption of groundwater.




get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is giving its water quality standards a fresh look. With public input in their hands, officials are under pressure to add language about nitrate levels, a move some said is long overdue.

Nitrate pollution is often tied to farm runoff containing fertilizers and animal waste. There are standards for drinking water but conservation groups want a nitrate standard for lakes and rivers.

Trevor Russell, water program director for Friends of the Mississippi River, said the effort has been building for more than 15 years but final action has been hard to come by. While it is difficult to keep waterways perfectly clean, he pointed out it is helpful to have scientific thresholds.

"We want them to be relatively healthy for fish and other aquatic life," Russell explained. "That's what we're managing for when you set a water quality standard."

His group was encouraged to see wording on the topic in a draft proposal. Russell hopes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency can hold off political pushback and not exclude it from the final plan. Public comment just wrapped up and the plan will soon be sent for federal review.

Minnesota has been aggressive in other ways to curb nitrate pollution, for which Russell gives the state credit.

The farming sector might not be overjoyed at the potential of a new nitrate standard but Russell noted many producers have joined the movement to limit their runoff. Still, he said even with actions like these, getting the problem under control will not be easy.

"About 15% of nitrogen application to Minnesota's farm fields is going to run off into our waters no matter what farmers do," Russell acknowledged. "It is the nature of nitrate and it is the risk that comes with our reliance on summer annual cropping systems that need to be fertilized."

If a nitrate standard is included, Russell emphasized Minnesota has a robust monitoring system in place to detect excessive levels, spurring a likely cleanup response. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said updating the standards is required every three years. It also covers bacteria, which can make the water unsafe for swimming, as well as so-called "forever chemicals" from industrial waste.

A new study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality found nitrate levels have continued to rise across the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area.

The report found about 40% of the wells tested exceed the limit of safe nitrate levels for drinking water. Exposure to nitrates can lead to blue baby syndrome, birth defects, thyroid problems and cancer, among other things.

Kaleb Lay, director of policy and research for the advocacy group Oregon Rural Action, said the state has known about the high levels of nitrate in the area for decades but has not done enough to address the issue.

"The state's approach has been basically just voluntary measures to reduce groundwater pollution," Lay explained. "Unsurprisingly, what we've seen ever since is nitrate levels continue to go up."

Lay pointed out synthetic fertilizer, liquefied manure and wastewater are the main sources of nitrate pollution in groundwater. Factory farms, including a major dairy supplying the brand Tillamook, spread their waste on Oregon fields. Lay added the contamination disproportionately impacts low-income Hispanic communities, many of whom work on the polluting farms.

Oregon Rural Action started testing wells in 2022, Lay noted, and has found disturbing levels of contamination.

"Hundreds of people were drinking water that was polluted by nitrates and had no idea," Lay reported. "They hadn't been warned about it."

A good place to start reining in the problem, according to Lay, is to collect more data. Senate Bill 747 would require farms 200 acres or larger to report how much fertilizer they use. It would allow the state to identify overuse and advise where farmers could use less fertilizer.

In written testimony, Oregon farmers opposed to the bill said they do not overuse fertilizer and are burdened by too many regulations.


get more stories like this via email