“Nuclear plants, garbage dumps and oil refineries have long faced opposition from neighbors. Ethanol was supposed to be different. . . .But a backlash has been brewing in towns across the Midwest.”CORN BATTLE
Ethanol Reaps a Backlash In Small Midwestern Towns
Residents Fight Plants On Water, Air Fears; Farmers Boycott Stores

By JOE BARRETT
March 23, 2007; Page A1
WSJ

CAMBRIA, Wis. — With empty storefronts on the main drag and corn stubble stretching for miles in the surrounding hills, this fading farm town seems like a natural stop for the ethanol express.

Not to John Mueller, though. The 54-year-old stay-at-home dad has led a dogged battle to prevent a corn mill from building an ethanol plant up the hill from the village school. Concerned about air pollution, the water supply and the mill’s environmental track record, Mr. Mueller and his group, Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, have blitzed the village’s 800 residents with fliers, packed public meetings and set up a sophisticated Web site.

The mill has fought back with its own publicity campaign and local corn farmers have taken to the streets in tractors to show support. Now, as the mill races to build the $70 million plant, the matter is headed to the federal courthouse in Madison, 40 miles southwest.

Nuclear plants, garbage dumps and oil refineries have long faced opposition from neighbors. Ethanol was supposed to be different. The corn-based fuel has a reputation for being good for farmers, the environment and rural economies. Ethanol, which already receives a 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, figures prominently in President Bush’s goal of reducing gasoline consumption by 20% over 10 years. But a backlash has been brewing in towns across the Midwest.

Fights have broken out in Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas and several towns in Wisconsin. Opponents complain that ethanol plants deplete aquifers, draw heavy truck traffic, pose safety concerns, contribute to air pollution and produce a sickly-sweet smell akin to that of a barroom floor.

In southwestern Missouri, a Webster County citizens’ group is suing to stop a plant proposed by closely held Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC of Mount Vernon, Mo. The detractors say the 80-million-gallon-a-year plant would use more water than the rest of the 33,000-resident county, an “unreasonable” use of the area’s underground water supply.

“This is not about water,” protests Bryan O. Wade, an attorney for Gulfstream. “This is about a group of people who simply do not want an industrial facility near their homes.”

Just outside Rockford, Ill., people who live near the site of a planned 100-million gallon ethanol plant have filed lawsuits against Winnebago County questioning the procedures by which it granted a rezoning to Wight Partners, a Schaumburg, Ill.-based developer. Last October, Wight filed a $3 million lawsuit against the residents, claiming they have abused the legal process merely to delay the project.

Industry officials concede that ethanol plants have had problems with smell and toxic emissions in the past, but say new technology has largely remedied that. “Generally, communities look at these plants as local economic engines,” says Robert Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, a Washington trade group. The plants bring jobs and have dramatically raised corn prices and farmland values. Many ethanol plants have paid rich dividends to investors, who often include local farmers and other residents.