Furious Fishermen Sue To Stop Offshore Wind Industry Wrecking Fishing Grounds

Always making more enemies than friends, the wind industry is being sued by America’s fishermen to stop it wrecking their fishing grounds and livelihoods.

Having ridden roughshod over communities on land for the best part of a generation, the wind industry has been doing so offshore, for more than a decade.

But, when it comes to litigating to enforce their rights, you’ve got to hand it to Americans. Those rights clearly include the right to an economic future, free of interference by a heavily subsidised industry that’s proven rotten to the core, across the globe.

All along the Atlantic coast, fishing communities have been fighting back against the offshore wind onslaught, with fishermen telling the wind industry goons precisely what they can do with their giant industrial turbines.

Now, with assistance from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Rhode Island’s fishing community has issued proceedings in the Federal Court seeking to knockout the permits given to Vineyard Wind which, if left in place, will inevitably wreck commercial fisheries worth hundreds of millions of dollars to their communities.

Texas Public Policy Foundation brings fishermen’s lawsuit against Vineyard Wind
National Fisherman
Kirk Moore
21 December 2021

A legal team from the Texas Public Policy Foundation is representing Rhode Island fishermen in a lawsuit seeking to overturn permits for the Vineyard Wind offshore energy project.

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has so prioritized offshore wind energy development that it is bypassing real environmental review and failing to consider alternative sites that won’t harm the commercial fishing industry, charges a lawsuit brought by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Filed Dec. 15 in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of six fishing businesses in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, the action challenges BOEM and other federal agencies on their review of the 800-megawatt Vineyard Wind project off southern New England.

The lead plaintiff, Seafreeze Shoreside Inc. of North Kingston, R.I., is a homeport and major processor for the Northeast squid fleet. Captains there are adamant they will not be able to fish if Vineyard Wind and other planned turbine arrays are erected in those waters.

Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison at Seafreeze and a vocal advocate for its fishermen, said she had heard mention of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in conversation, “kind of along the lines of Pacific Legal Foundation which litigated for the fishing industry on the Northeast marine monument” fishing restrictions recently reinstated by the Biden administration.

Lapp said she looked at the group’s website and read about their involvement on economic issues, healthcare including a case now before the Supreme Court, education and local government.

“It looked promising, so I contacted them through their website,” several months ago, she said.

Along with putting a legal team on the case, the TPPF’s media unit traveled to Rhode Island to interview and film fishermen for a short documentary now posted on the foundation’s website and promoted through social media.

In addition to Seafreeze, the foundation is representing the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the XIII Northeast Fishery Sector Inc. in Dartmouth, Mass., and family fishing businesses Heritage Fisheries Inc. and Nat. W. Inc., both in Westerly, R.I., and Old Squaw Fisheries in Montauk, N.Y. All rely on waters around the Vineyard Wind lease for most of their annual catch, the lawsuit says.

As defendants, the lawsuit names BOEM, the Interior Department, National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which all play a role in the permitting process.

The lawsuit quotes one key observation in the BOEM record of decision, which was based on the Corps of Engineers’ communications with fishermen: “While Vineyard Wind is not authorized to prevent free access to the entire wind development area, due to the placement of the turbines it is likely that the entire 75,614 acre area will be abandoned by commercial fisheries due to difficulties with navigation.”

The BOEM process fails to account for impending conflicts at the start of its offshore leasing process, said Lapp. That was an argument presented in an earlier lawsuit against the Equinor Empire Wind lease off New York by the Fisheries Survival Fund, she recalled.

When that was rejected in court, “we said you guys (BOEM) have to start considering impacts up front…You need to de-conflict up front,” she said.

In the case of Vineyard Wind, the process failed to account for the region’s critical role in the longfin squid fishery, said Lapp. Agencies looked at major Massachusetts-based fleets in those waters, but “there’s hardly any squid unloaded in Massachusetts. It’s all in Rhode Island and New York,” she added.

Based in the state capitol Austin, the foundation calls itself guided by “free enterprise, liberty, personal responsibility” and promotes a range of conservative and pro-business causes. Among its issues the group has opposed renewable energy programs and efforts to move away from fossil fuels, with financial support over the years by ExxonMobil, Chevron and the Charles H. Koch Foundation, whose industrialist founder has underwritten other challenges to climate-related government policies.

“In approving the Vineyard Wind project, the federal government trampled the rights of Americans to pursue its misguided goal of developing offshore wind energy at any cost,” said Ted Hadzi-Antich, senior attorney for CAF. “In the process, it violated multiple federal statutes that protect the environment, national security, commercial fishing, and the nation’s food supply. Our lawsuit aims to protect the communities that depend on fishing to support their families, as well as ensure the areas do not become wastelands for marine wildlife.”

“The violations of the Federal Laws resulted from the Federal Defendants’ unintelligent pursuit of their overarching governmental goal of increasing the capacity of renewable energy generation on the Outer Continental Shelf at any cost,” the lawsuit asserts. “By indiscriminately pursuing that goal, the Federal Defendants disregarded their legal responsibilities.

“Accordingly, the Court should declare the issuance of the lease and the approval of the Construction and Operations Plan unlawful and enjoin further construction of the Vineyard Wind project.”

A spokesman for Vineyard Wind said the developers do not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit’s charges reach back to earliest years of federal offshore wind policy, criticizing changes to BOEM policy under the Obama administration, including the so-called “Smart From The Start” streamlining of offshore energy permitting.

Under earlier rules, BOEM had to subject lease development to four stages: planning and analysis; lease issuance; site assessment plan approval; and construction and operations plan approval, the lawsuit says.

“With regard to leasing, the ‘Smart From The Start’ policy merged the first three steps, leaving only one opportunity for public comment upon receipt of an unsolicited lease proposal, removing any prebid opportunity for public comment on the lease locations, and torpedoing any on-site evaluation of environmental impacts or existing ‘reasonable uses,’ including fishing, prior to lease issuance.”

Back in 2009 to 2010, then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talked up that planning process in East Coast public meetings to enable wind development. The lawsuit says that change “purports to authorize BOEM to lease large areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to private companies without adequate process and without consideration of alternative sites.”

The Deepwater Horizon oil platform explosion and spill in April 2010 distracted much of BOEM’s offshore planning back then. Wind power planning remained in the agency’s portfolio, and even gained some resurgence during the Trump administration.

One foundation subsidiary, the Fueling Freedom Project, defined its mission as making “the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels.” It was led by Doug Domenech, who was tapped to lead the Trump administration’s transition team at the Interior Department.

While opening more lands to fossil fuel development was a priority, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also promoted offshore wind development during his 2017-2019 tenure. Former president Trump himself frequently mocked renewable energy, and as his administration drew to a close in December 2020 top Interior officials moved to derail any approvals for Vineyard Wind.

The developers had asked to withdraw and revise their application to use larger GE Haliade-X turbines, but BOEM announced Dec. 16, 2020 that it was terminating, not just suspending, that review process, the lawsuit notes.

Under the new Biden administration, BOEM in early 2021 then “resumed review of the terminated Vineyard Wind COP without requiring Vineyard Wind to update the agency with details describing studies, surveys, and other project specific information Vineyard Wind gathered during its 13-14 MW Haliade-X review between December 1, 2020 and January 22, 2021,” the lawsuit says.

BOEM violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act “by approving the Vineyard Wind COP, which did not demonstrate that its proposed activity was safe by failing to ensure safe travel for commercial fishing boats, safe operation of bottom trawl vessels, or a safe environment for emergency rescue operations,” the lawsuit says. “The project will interfere with marine navigational radar, increasing risks for all vessels in the area…BOEM failed to properly review and analyze Vineyard Wind’s decision to increase its turbine size even though it made the project less safe—a willful lack of due diligence that puts every ship traveling through the Vineyard Wind project area at risk.”
National Fisherman

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. To highlight the absurdity of claims that “building these at any cost would be beneficial” and “effective mitigation of climate change” and to make it more obvious of all the absurdities of all claims made of them being clean and efficient, and that it’s helpful to do such as “any cost” we should start demanding they be placed on the Sun AT ANY COST for pure and total energy efficiency and climate controls.

    This should be goaled out to 2050.

    We can explain in same absurdities as the climate cons and their cult fans do that there is a constant supply of solar wind there, not intermittent, and that the energy can be converted from there directly into solar radiation, with no need for storage in batteries. Added benefit the Sun will burn them up and provide more energy. The costs of building and shipping them there of course will totally bankrupt all world economies and ruin planet Earth completely as it uses up all resources, as current Green Renewable Electric Energy Development (GREED) continues, but then they can as always claim that is for the greater good yet such claim always ignores how many people suffer and die ignoring physics while those managing the greater good somehow have all the toys and batteries every single time that these “greater good” programs in producing GREED manifest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: