I only have one problem with their findings, and it has to do with the property values discussion.
When you consider property value, you have to consider what the property is going to be used for. If you moved to the country to start a farm, then there is no claim against the turbines because there is no impediment to your ability to do so.
However, in the United States, there is a concept called "right of quiet enjoyment" which has some limited application if, for instance, you moved to the country to escape the noise of the city and relax in your convalescence, only to discover that you are now constantly inundated with the sound of a slow-motion helicopter attack on your property.
The application of the nuisance per accidens legal standard would give an American property owner the right to request a trial by jury to decide whether or not the turbines qualified as a private nuisance to the property owner. A private nuisance which violates enjoyment rights can result in lowered property values, and restitution for such damages can be enforced by the state.
Of course, this report originated in Canada, and I don't know shit from shit about privacy and nuisance laws up there in America's Hat.