By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — After discussing the ordinance since 2018, and after holding two public hearings, the Dunn County Land Conservation Committee is recommending the county board approve an updated ordinance on agricultural performance standards and manure storage and management.
The existing ordinance was approved in April of 2000, said Chase Cummings, county conservationist, at the planning, resources and development committee and land conservation committee meeting on May 11.
The ordinance needed to be updated, and updating the ordinance has been under discussion since 2018, he said.
Changes and updates to the ordinance were made according to state law and state administrative code, Cummings said, noting that Dunn County’s ordinance is not more restrictive than state law.
If Dunn County wanted to make the ordinance more restrictive than state law, then the county would have to adopt the ordinance by a referendum or through approval by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) or approval by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, he said.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with a model ordinance provided by DATCP and includes NR151 standards for land and water conservation, Cummings said.
Following a public hearing in December of 2020, public comments were incorporated into the ordinance where necessary, Cummings said.
Citations
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D/land conservation committee, said he objected to the portion of the ordinance pertaining to Dunn County issuing citations for violations.
The state has the authority to issue citations and has more resources to pursue issuing citations, he said.
Because of the ability for Dunn County to issue citations being included in the ordinance, Bjork said he intended to vote “no.”
Cummings, who only recently began working as the county conservationist in Dunn County following the retirement of Dan Prestebak, said he knew that the portion about citations had been a concern in the past.
Under the existing ordinance, when there are compliance issues, Dunn County relies on the DNR to enforce NR151, he said.
The DNR has limited staff, and it takes a long time to resolve compliance issues, anywhere from a couple of years to up to 10 years, Cummings said.
Including the ability for Dunn County to issue citations in the ordinance allows for flexibility to get compliance in a more reasonable time frame rather than waiting for the DNR, he said.
Corp counsel
The existing ordinance already allows the county’s corporation counsel to start legal proceedings to get repairs, remediation or the removal of manure storage facilities, said Nick Lange, Dunn County corporation counsel.
The proposed ordinance is “not an invitation to issue a flurry of tickets,” he said.
Any farmer who is issued a citation can contest the citation in court, Lange said.
The ordinance allows a fine of up to $500 per day for violations, and each day is considered a separate violation, he said.
Being able to assess damages is valuable for compliance. A fine of $250 per day may also achieve the same result for compliance, but a fine of $500 per day will achieve the result faster, Lange said.
The ability to issue citations is designed to achieve compliance with the ordinance on a faster timeline without much additional cost for the county, he said.
There will be a factual basis for any citations issued that the ordinance was violated and the standards were not followed, Lange said.
Not affordable
Bjork, who farms in the Colfax area, said he was concerned if that a farmer called Dunn County out about a manure storage facility, for example, that the solution offered would not be agreeable to the landowner or maybe not affordable for the landowner.
Dunn County personnel are going to exhaust all resources to achieve the standards in the ordinance and state administrative code, Cummings said.
The changes in the ordinance will not be very noticeable to farmers because Dunn County is already administering NR151, he said.
Dunn County will be looking for the most reasonable and cost-effective solutions and for consensus with the landowner, Cummings said.
Some of the technical standards require cost-sharing, he noted.
There may be instances where a landowner does not want to comply or there is no less costly way to fix the problem, Cummings said.
The Dunn County PR&D Committee/Land Conservation Committee recommended sending the proposed updated ordinance to the Dunn County Board for consideration.
Bjork voted “no” on the motion.
