I have a chart here that I want to use and describe. But first let me say why a Senator from Alaska is involved in this issue. This is a tremendous precedent is what I’m trying to present. We have a series of areas of various states where there’s a gap in state jurisdiction and federal waters are really adjacent to and sometimes almost surrounded by state waters. That is particularly true in my state.

 

Below Kalgin Island in Cook Inlet there are federal waters that are surrounded by the mainland of Alaska going down the inlet. The Minerals Management Service tells us that there’s roughly two and half million acres of federal waters that are just going down that inlet that could be used for projects such as those I am going to discuss today.

 

A similar situation exists in Chandlier Island in Louisiana, the Channel Islands of California, the Farallon Islands of California, in the Hawaiian Islands in many instances, and in Puerto Rico. But what I am here to talk about is the precedent that would be established by locating this facility in Nantucket Sound less than two miles beyond the State of Massachusetts’ jurisdiction.    

 

Now if we look at this chart you can see very clearly the area, the darkest color in the chart is the proposed site of this wind power facility. It is nine miles from the one part of Massachusetts and 13.8 from the other side, six miles in the other direction. So when you look at the situation realizing that the state has jurisdiction over at least three miles in that area, this is very close to the area of Massachusetts where people have a right to be concerned over this project.

 

Before the federal government claimed ownership of this area, and there was a judicial dispute over which government has jurisdiction over it, I am informed that the State of Massachusetts had established a marine park in this area. As a matter of fact, it was listed as part of a marine sanctuary, a proposed marine sanctuary even in the federal listings. It is now the proposed site for the largest and most expansive offshore wind energy project ever undertaken in the world.  This facility would include turbines that stand 417 feet tall.

 

There’s a chart that describes it (chart 1). Those wind mills will be 417 feet tall. That is taller than the Statue of Liberty. It is taller than this one little point right at the bottom which is a 30-foot sailboat? See how much this is over the size of the people who use this Nantucket Sound for their sailboats. But the great Point Lighthouse that is supposed to keep sailors and mariners warned about the area, is only 73 feet tall. When you look at this area (chart 2), it is 24 miles across, more than half the size of Boston Harbor itself. That is going to be the site of this enormous facility. As I said, it is larger than any similar kind of wind energy project in the world.  It really is a small area of federal jurisdiction, completely surrounded by the mainland and islands of Massachusetts. 

 

Some in the media have insinuated that by including this provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act I am doing it as a favor for an old friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.  As a matter of fact, he is an old friend and it’s true that Senator Kennedy – and the Governor of Massachusetts – support the provision that is in the Coast Guard bill, but it is my amendment.  They have agreed with me. I didn’t seek their agreement. It is not an issue based on friendship, nor any past favors or future favors. It is strictly a provision based upon my long-held belief that states should have the final say on projects which will directly impact their land, resources, and their constituents. 

 

Some in the press have claimed this provision is embedded in "obscure legislation to be passed in the dead of night."  Mr. President we hear this all the time, but the Coast Guard Authorization bill is hardly “obscure legislation” and there is nothing secretive about this bill.  The version of this bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision related to offshore wind farms. It was in the House-passed bill to start with. The House and Senate, in a bicameral, bipartisan group of Members, a conference committee, discussed and negotiated language to provide the State of Massachusetts a greater voice in the siting of this wind mill farm in Nantucket Sound.  This bicameral, bipartisan group also negotiated language requiring the Coast Guard to assess the potential navigational impacts of the proposed offshore power plant.  This is the normal legislative process for passing legislation of this type through the Congress.

 

Again, let me point out that if you look at this chart. I don’t live in this area but we’ve studied it pretty well. The path of the ferries come out of these areas (chart 2), and go through this Sound. And Commercial traffic comes through and steamships and cargo ships go into that port. As a consequence of this location, this line demonstrates the state’s jurisdiction and how close this project is to the state’s jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, this line shows the previous plan which would have gone partially into the state’s jurisdiction. The project was amended so that it does not touch the state jurisdiction at all. It is then just this area that is in solid green on this chart. By the way, this is a very shallow portion of this area. There’s no question about it. And Nantucket Island is out here. But there are equally shallow portions outside of the Sound that could have been used. But of course it is cheaper to go in there and it is access to this interior part of this Sound is strictly a financial decision.     

 

At the heart of this debate is the issue of states’ rights.  The fact is this project will be located entirely in the Sound – in a small donut hole of federal water surrounded by the islands and mainland of the State of Massachusetts.  The debate over this project is similar to the fights that those of us in Alaska have been engaged in for decades.  Our state lands are surrounded by federal lands, our waters are surrounded by federal waters, and we often do not have any say in decisions regarding the development of our resources or the projects which will be located in our state.  This is one of those situations where Congress ought to listen to the Governor, to listen to the senior Senator, in my opinion.

 

Those in Massachusetts have raised legitimate concerns about the impacts of this wind farm and what its impact will be on maritime navigation, on aviation, and our radar installations critical to our homeland security.  The proposed site is an area already known for its treacherous flight conditions, and this facility could make those conditions much worse.  According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, this facility will be located in the flight path of thousands of small planes.  Both the Barnstable and Nantucket airport commissions are opposed to the construction of this facility, as are the major ferry lines operating in Nantucket Sound.  As the chart I’ve just described shows (chart 2), ferry routes pass within a mile of the proposed location for this project on either side.  A mile from a 24-square-mile, 417-foot wind farm. Again, those wind mills are larger than this building in which I speak now. That is larger than the Capitol. You have to get the specter of the size of this project that is being built in the center of the Sound. This 24-square-mile footprint for this facility, as I said, is nearly half the size of Boston Harbor and has shipping and ferry channels bordering it on three sides. 

 

There’s not a single local fishing group in Massachusetts that supports this project, I am informed, and it would effectively close a 24-square-mile footprint to many kinds of fishing that have taken place in the Sound for generations.  Horseshoe Shoal, where the facility would be built, is one of the most productive fishing grounds in the area. That means this area produces offspring. This is where the fish come and spawn. Now the impact on the shoal will be significant.  The piles for each of these windmills, 130 of them, are 16 feet in diameter and will be bored down into the shoal at a depth of about 80 feet.  This productive area will be littered with 130 holes drilled in it. Each pile will occupy about 2 acres of productive fishing grounds. Navigating in and around 130 turbines will make fishing and fishing reproduction in this area nearly impossible.  In addition, these turbines will make Coast Guard search-and-rescue missions much more difficult in this area already known for severe weather and sea conditions in parts of the year.  

 

Now those in Massachusetts raise another important point, I believe – developing a wind farm of this size and scale offshore has never been done before – let alone in an environment as extreme as the waters of the North Atlantic.  To put these challenges in perspective, it helps to compare the Massachusetts project with the wind farm currently operating in Palm Springs, California. I know a little bit about this. I’ve gone into that town several times by air. That facility consists of wind mills standing 150 feet at their tallest point – the blades are half the length of a football field, but one-third of this size.  Even on dry land in a relatively calm desert climate, the Palm Springs wind farm has been plagued by serious maintenance complications – many of the wind turbines require constant maintenance and repair.  Put that in the Massachusetts Sound, Mr. President. They require maintenance and repair constantly. This Massachusetts project would require this type of repair and maintenance take place in the icy waters of Nantucket Sound, and the size of these wind mills proposed for this facility would dwarf existing land-based wind projects.  The wind mills in Nantucket Sound would stand nearly three times as tall as those in Palm Springs, with wind blades over a football field in length. Just the blade would be a football field in length.

 

Given the legitimate issues raised by the people of Massachusetts and their representatives, I believe it is only fair to allow the state to have an equal voice in the debate over the siting of this project.  Nantucket Sound, as I’ve said, is not the only place where a project of this kind can be built.  In Europe, deep water wind energy technologies are currently being developed as far out as 15 miles in 138 feet of water.  Placing wind energy facilities farther from shore reduces their impact on maritime navigation.  If this 24-square-mile wind farm is built further away from shore, there will be a number of benefits.  It will be removed from boating, fishing, ferry, and shipping channels, reducing the risk that a collision could occur, and reducing the potential impact on the navigation that we’ve asked the Coast Guard to look into.   

 

I do support increasing America’s use of alternative energy sources, including wind power.  I have supported wind projects in the past.  During my time as Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, our committee appropriated over $105 million dollars for wind projects from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2006. There was even one in my state around Kotzebue. It is the right of a state to determine if this type of project is consistent with its efforts to protect its resources.  I believe we should defer to the judgment of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Governor of Massachusetts, and the people of Massachusetts on this matter.

 

States should have a say in the activities taking place in the waters adjacent to their shores.  This location, in particular deserves special consideration due to the geographic peculiarities of the region.  Just think California blocked oil platforms. Oregon and Washington blocked them even before they were built. We now have a dispute before the Congress over a potential development of gas resources 170 miles of the State of Florida. This is three miles. I’ve only been there two or three times, but it is a place if you ever go to it, you wouldn’t ever forget it. It is not a place that deserves to have this impact. The residents of Massachusetts will have to live with the impact of this project.  They must have a greater role in determining the fate of one of this treasured area. 

 

This bill, H.R. 889, as agreed to by the conference committee, I think rightly awards the State of Massachusetts this greater authority in decisions regarding this project.  So I’m here today to urge the House and the Senate to listen to the people of Massachusetts and particularly to the senior Senator of Massachusetts.