By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — Following a public hearing, the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee has directed land conservation staff to consider public comments and testimony and to bring a revised version of the proposed manure storage ordinance back to the committee.
The PR&D committee held a public hearing on the proposed agricultural performance standards and manure storage and management ordinance December 22.
The new ordinance compares to the Dunn County ordinance that has been in place since 2000 and includes all of the performance standards in NR151, said Dan Prestebak, county land and water conservationist.
NR151 refers to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ runoff management standards, which cover pollution performance standards for runoff from agricultural facilities, non-agricultural facilities and transportation facilities.
The proposed ordinance requires cost sharing with the farmer unless an existing facility is being altered or a new manure storage structure is being constructed, Prestebak noted.
According to the proposed ordinance, “An owner or an operator of an agricultural facility or practice that is in existence before October 1, 2002, may not be required to comply with the performance standards, prohibitions, conservation practices or technical standards under this subchapter unless cost-sharing is available from any source to the owner or operator.”
The proposed ordinance also allows the Dunn County Land and Water Conservation Division to issue citations and “stop work” orders to enforce the ordinance, Prestebak said.
Testimony
During the public hearing, Kathy Stahl, a resident in the Town of Colfax and a member of the Healthy Environment Action Team, said she had several areas of concern about the proposed ordinance.
The Healthy Environment Action Team (HEAT) was one of the citizen groups that formed after a Dunn County survey on health needs in the county. Other citizen groups that were formed focus on alcohol, nicotine and drugs; chronic disease prevention; housing; and mental health.
One area of concern is the ordinance does not include any performance standards for vehicles that transport liquid manure for land application or for hoses and drag lines or for areas where the manure is being off-loaded into fields, Stahl said.
Significant leaks in drag lines do occur, she said, and asked Dunn County to consider including performance standards.
The section of the ordinance to which Stahl was referring states, under definitions, “Manure storage: Physically transferring manure from the livestock production area, feedlot or place of origin to another location, manure storage facility or unconfined manure pile. Manure storage does not include transferring manure for land application.”
Nutrient management
Stahl said she was also concerned about nutrient management plans because row crops have a significant impact on ground water quality.
The proposed ordinance states the nutrient management plans may allow for an increase of nutrients to meet crop demand.
Stahl said the ordinance should be changed to say that the nutrient management plan balances the nutrients based on the water quality in the area and on the crop demand.
People who have private wells have to deal with contaminants in the groundwater, such as nitrates from farm fields, while the agricultural producer does not have to absorb the financial impact of contaminating surrounding wells, she said.
Stahl said she wants agricultural producers to succeed, but that she did not believe the ordinance should allow farmers to adjust nutrients for crops without including the impact to water quality.
Research has shown nutrient management plans do not have much of an impact on reducing nitrates in groundwater, Stahl said.
The ordinance should include evaluation of how the nutrient management plans are affecting water quality, she said.
The ordinance also should define a goal, such as all water wells in Dunn County should be less than 10 milligrams per liter for nitrate, Stahl said.
“What are we shooting for with this ordinance?” she asked.
Experts who have studied nutrient management plans say the plans are not the solution for improving water quality in all circumstances, Stahl said.
“Are the performance standards adequate to reach the goals?” she asked.
Steve Hogseth of Menomonie, also a member of the Healthy Environment Action Team, noted that members of the group had gone over the proposed ordinance line by line, had made notes for changes on the draft of the ordinance and had sent the marked up copy to the land and water conservation division.
Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee, noted the suggestions on the draft of the ordinance had been received but that committee members had not had an opportunity to review the suggestions.
Nutrients
Quinn asked Prestebak to talk about the section pertaining to increasing nutrients for crop demands.
The language of NR151 is included in the proposed ordinance, and there is no leeway for changing the language, Prestebak said, noting that the standards are also included in NRCS standards.
NRCS refers to the Natural Resources Conservation Service
The allowable increase in soil nutrients would be used by the crop because it is meeting crop demand. The increase in nutrients would be temporary, in the spring while the crops are being planted, and would not be more than the crop would use, he said.
There are also no NRCS standards for drag lines or the emptying of manure pits or for manure tankers, Prestebak said.
NRCS stops with construction of the manure pit and transferring the manure from the barn to the pit, he said.
A break in a drag line, or if a manure tanker tips over, is always a concern, but there is no NRCS standard to adopt into Dunn County’s ordinance, Prestebak said.
Quinn asked if it would be possible for Dunn County to develop standards.
Developing standards for drag lines, manure tankers and the area where the manure is being off-loaded would require resources that are beyond what Dunn County has available, although the county board could recommend that the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) develop a standard, Prestebak said.
Resolution
After closing the public hearing, Quinn said the question in front of the PR&D committee was whether the proposed ordinance was in a form the committee could forward to the Dunn County Board for consideration.
Prestebak said he had other recommendations for the proposed ordinance as well.
One recommendation was to remove definitions for “malfunctioning” and “mismanaged” manure storage facilities because those definitions had been removed from NR151 and DATCP recommended removing those definitions from the ordinance before sending it to the county board, Prestebak said.
There is enough language in the proposed ordinance about the operation of existing facilities to cover the concept of malfunctioning and mismanaged so that the definitions do not have to be included, Prestebak said.
Several PR&D committee members wondered why the definitions could not be left in the proposed ordinance.
Leaving the definitions of “malfunctioning” and “mismanaged” might not be a problem, but DATCP recommended removing them and malfunctioning and mismanaged manure storage facilities are defined elsewhere in the proposed ordinance, Prestebak said.
The definitions may help the ordinance to be more “user friendly,” but the county wants to avoid having a regulation that is not in state statute, said Nick Lange, Dunn County corporation counsel.
State law often does not allow counties, cities, towns or villages to make regulations that are more restrictive than state law, he said.
Toxic waste
When asked for his impressions of the proposed ordinance, Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee, said there is a tendency to treat manure as “toxic waste” but it is also a nutrient for crops.
Concerned environmentalists make comments about manure as toxic waste, but they do not know what it takes to run a modern farm, he said.
The groundwater must certainly be protected, but nutrients must also be protected in order to have healthy crops and fertile soil, Bjork said.
“We need regulations, but we also need to be able to grow crops to feed the nation,” he said.
The PR&D committee wants to “get it right” concerning the ordinance, and there must be a balance between not ruining the environment and putting undue hardship on farmers, Quinn said.
Prestebak also recommended removing feedlots from the proposed ordinance since the county regulates feedlots under the livestock siting ordinance.
The run-off from feedlots can be regulated, but the feedlots cannot be regulated or licensed under agricultural performance standards, he said.
Public hearing
Quinn asked about amending the ordinance in consideration of the testimony and public comments and Prestebak’s recommendations and whether another public hearing would be required.
The public may have a right to comment on the revised ordinance and another public hearing could be held, said Paul Miller, county manager.
Quinn said he had originally considered continuing the public hearing to another date with the idea of reviewing the revised ordinance.
With no objections from the other PR&D committee members, Quinn directed land and water conservation staff and the corporation counsel to consider the comments and the testimony and to bring a revised draft of the proposed ordinance to a future meeting.
The most important consideration is to “get it right,” Quinn said.
