Dunn County holds off on stormwater management and erosion control ordinances
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — For the time being, the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee is holding off on developing stormwater management and erosion control ordinances.
Before moving forward with developing the ordinances, considerations would be the workload of existing staff members and the availability of funding, said Chase Cummings, county conservationist, at the PR&D committee’s June 28 meeting.
Another consideration would be that stormwater management and erosion control tends to have impacts on surface water rather than groundwater, he said, noting that there is limited technical guidance on stormwater and erosion impacts to groundwater.
The Dunn County Groundwater Ad-hoc Committee was appointed by the Dunn County Board in 2019 to study groundwater issues in the county and to make recommendations.
The committee included two staff geologists with Cedar Corporation; Dan Prestebak, the county conservationist at the time; a conservation planner; Katherine Stahl, Dunn County citizen; the director of the Dunn County Health Department; an environmental health specialist; a water quality specialist; two county board members; a well-drilling contractor; the wastewater superintendent for the City of Menomonie; a dairy farmer; and a technical specialist with Dunn County Land Information Services.
As part of every meeting, the PR&D committee reviews a spreadsheet of the recommendations from the groundwater ad-hoc committee and the work that has been completed so far.
Recommendations from the groundwater ad-hoc committee include developing stormwater management and erosion control ordinances.
Buffers
In addition to the recommendations for developing stormwater management and erosion control ordinances, the groundwater ad-hoc committee recommended revising existing ordinances or writing new ordinances for buffers around wetlands; revising the Dunn County code of ordinances to grant citation authority to the Dunn County Environmental Services Department; and revising the Dunn County subdivision ordinances.
Other considerations before developing new ordinances would be a review of the existing ordinances that may cover some of the same aspects of stormwater management and erosion control, Cummings said.
For example, Dunn County already has a shoreland zoning ordinance (Chapter 14) that includes, under purpose and intent, “controlling filling and grading to prevent soil erosion problems” and “preserving wetlands to minimize runoff and soil erosion” as well as “preventing the destruction and degradation of wetlands” and “preserving native wetland plant/tree communities.”
The shoreland zoning ordinance also contains provisions pertaining to establishing buffer zones around shorelines and wetlands and for soil conservation and agricultural drainage maintenance.
72 counties
Cummings said he had sent a message to all 72 counties in Wisconsin to ask about stormwater management and erosion control ordinances and to find out who in the county administered those ordinances.
Out of 72 counties, 45 responses were received, and out of those 45, 20 have an ordinance and 25 do not have an ordinance, Cummings said.
Of those counties that do have an ordinance, administering the ordinance is either county zoning or the land and water division or a shared administration between zoning and land and water conservation, he said.
If the amount of land that is disturbed is more than one acre, then the state Department of Natural Resources covers stormwater management and erosion control, Cummings said.
For one-family and two-family dwellings, then the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) covers stormwater management and erosion control, he said.
Under NR151, one-family and two-family dwellings are exempt from local ordinances, Cummings said.
Chapter NR151 in Wisconsin administrative code establishes run-off pollution performance standards.
Polk County
Polk County’s stormwater control ordinance is more than 50 pages, and one-family and two-family dwellings are exempt except if the disturbed area is more than a half acre that is located in a sensitive area, such as shoreland or near wetlands, Cummings said.
Polk County officials noted that the ordinance on the books is somewhat unattainable and that it duplicates the control of other agencies, he said.
Dunn County could develop an ordinance that pertains to sensitive areas, such as shoreland and highly permeable soils for the groundwater focus, Cummings said.
Last year, Dunn County rolled the NR151 performance standards into the county code for agricultural standards and manure management, he said.
Polk County has 12 to 15 major projects per year that fall under the stormwater control ordinance, and the work accounts for 20 percent of the staff time, Cummings said.
If the additional work associated with stormwater management and erosion control ordinances were to take up 20 percent of the staff time, other work would have to be eliminated, he said.
The ordinances could be administered through the zoning department and land and water conservation, but another employee would be needed, along with the funding to hire another employee, Cummings said.
The challenge is to find balance with an efficient and effective ordinance rather than creating more rules on the books that cannot really be enforced, he said.
Expectations
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she did not serve on the groundwater ad-hoc committee but that the issues of stormwater management and erosion control were discussed by the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) study group.
The PR&D committee keeps placing more expectations on the staff, and while expectations are not necessarily a bad thing, pursuing additional ordinances does not seem like a reasonable expectation to pursue at this point, Morehouse said.
Stormwater management and erosion control ordinances are “a great idea,” but the idea will have to wait “until we get more bodies,” she said.
Cummings emphasized that he was not against the recommendation for stormwater management and erosion control ordinances and that he was not opposed to pursuing the development of the ordinances. “But we do have limitations on funding and staff,” he said.
Polk County is now in the process of trying to roll back some of the details, Cummings noted.
Polk County is only focusing on the sensitive areas, but even that limitation is taking up 20 percent of the staff time, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee, who noted that Polk County has more lake areas than Dunn County.
Stormwater management and erosion control is covered by current codes, Quinn said.
“I am inclined to admit that maybe we were over-ambitious (on the groundwater ad-hoc committee recommendations),” he said.
The land division ordinance also has wetland setbacks, Cummings noted.
The development of stormwater management and erosion control ordinances can stay on the work list pertaining to the groundwater ad-hoc committee recommendations, and the idea can be re-visited later, he said.
For now, considering staff availability and funding availability, Cummings said he was “reserved” about pursuing the ordinances.
