WIND PLAN NO BREEZE PROJECT MAY DEPEND ON ECONOMIC INCENTIVES.

Byline: Jim Skeen Staff Writer

PALMDALE - The Palmdale Water District will prepare an environmental impact report for a controversial wind turbine, but officials say they won't make a decision on building it until they get a clear picture of economic factors.

The Palmdale Water District awarded a contract not to exceed $25,000 to CBA, a Pasadena consulting company, to perform the environmental report focusing on biological impacts from the project, particularly the prospects of birds being killed by the turbine's blades.

``There are several financial conditions that must be reviewed and a more complete aviary Environmental Impact Report must be conducted before the Board makes a final decision to proceed with the installation of a wind turbine,'' said district General Manager Dennis LaMoreaux.

Those economic factors include what incentives will be available from Southern California Edison and what measures the district might have to take to protect birds.

The district is proposing to build a $1.2 million wind turbine at Lake Palmdale to power its water treatment plant and booster pump facility. Any excess energy would go back to the state's power grid.

Critics of the project said the turbine will ruin views of the Antelope Valley, particularly for those entering from the south, and will propose a hazard for birds around Lake Palmdale.

Last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the city of Palmdale, whose officials argued that the water district did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the project.

The city's legal challenge was to a document called a mitigated negative declaration in which water district officials concluded that the turbine could potentially harm the environment but that it would be built in such a way that the harm would be insignificant.

In the legal challenge, city officials said there had been an understatement of environmental effects, including visual blight, the impact on birds and the potential for earthquake damage. City officials contended that water district officials had downplayed, discounted and hidden potential adverse impacts. The water district said portions of the ruling were favorable, however, because the judge's concerns were on the potential for bird kills and not on aesthetics or seismic issues.

In city officials' court filings, the wind turbine was called a ``windmill behemoth'' that would dominate views of the valley and become a death trap for ducks, geese and other waterfowl at the lake. The twirling blades of the turbine would be virtually invisible to birds, city officials said.

Water district officials said that little is known about the effects wind turbines have on birds and had proposed to monitor the number of birds killed by the turbine. The California Department of Fish and Game could then use that information to determine whether further actions would be needed to protect birds.