By Tom Wiensch February 20, 2024-
Photo Credit- Samantha Sherwood JWMS Grade 7 from Wisconsin Land and Water youth conservation poster contest
INTRODUCTION
A bill has been introduced in the State Senate that would force certain private landowners to open private roads to automobile, ATV, snowmobile and other vehicle use. The bill, 2023 Senate Bill 999 Wisconsin Legislature: SB999: Bill Text , relates to lands that are enrolled under the Open Managed Forest Land Program. This bill has the potential to have far reaching negative effects on the timber and recreation industries in Wisconsin. The bill is sponsored by Senators Felzkowski, Quinn, and Stafsholt and is co-sponsored by Representatives Green and Schmidt.
FOREST PRODUCTS AND RECREATION INDUSTRY VALUES
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reports that:
“The forest products industry contributes $24.4 billion in goods and services and employs 61,000 men and women in forest management, logging and wood and paper manufacturing.”
The DNR also states that, of the recreation industry, hunting alone contributes 2.5 billion dollars to the state’s economy. Of course, forest land also contributes to the health of Wisconsin’s land and waters in many ways.
MANAGED FOREST LAND PROGRAM
The MFL Program provides incentives in the form of discounted property taxes to landowners who agree to sustainably manage their lands for timber production. The program is a successor to the Forest Crop Law, which began in 1927.
Currently, there are over 3 million acres in the state enrolled in the MFL program. Each parcel has a plan, and the plans provide for timber harvesting, wildlife management, water quality, and recreation. Tax incentives vary
depending on whether or not landowners choose to open their land to the public. The current tax rates are as follows:
Land entered before 2005 (1987 - 2004)
Open land (acreage share tax): $0.72
Closed land (acreage share tax plus $0.96 closed acreage fee): $1.68
Land entered after 2004 (2005 and later)
Open land (acreage share tax): $1.90
Closed land (acreage share tax plus $7.59 closed acreage fee): $9.49
MFL TAXES AND LIMITATIONS
Currently, owners of lands in the Open MFL Program must allow non-motorized public access to their Open MFL lands for such things as hunting, fishing, hiking and cross-country skiing, but are not required to open their lands to motorized use. It is important to note that landowners can only place 320 acres of their land in any municipality (town, village, city) in Closed MFL (no public access.) Public access must be provided to Open MFL lands. This means that landowners can’t block access to their Open MFL lands by enrolling all lands along public roads in Closed MFL. It is also important to know that formerly a 5% yield tax was paid by owners of MFL lands. The yield tax meant that, when timber was harvested, landowners paid approximately 5% of the value of the timber in taxes. That tax was repealed effective 2016.
BILL DETAILS
SB 999 would require landowners to allow vehicle traffic on all roads and trails on their open MFL lands that are at least nine feet wide and maintained for vehicular traffic. These roads and trails would have to be open to all members of the public for non-commercial use by any motor vehicles with a gross weight of 8000 lbs. or less, and all registered ATVs, UTVs, and snowmobiles.
Landowners would only have the right to close their roads from April 1st until the first Saturday in May, regardless of the time of the spring break-up of ice in the ground. During many years, the break-up of frost in the ground occurs earlier or later. During such years, March and May can be times when the deep ground is still frozen, while the top few inches are thawed, saturated, and unable to drain. Vehicular traffic during these times can be enormously damaging to roads.
Landowners would have a grace period during which they could shift lands from Open MFL to closed MFL without penalties. No exception is made; however, to the 320-acre maximum rule.
The bill would also create a road repair program to be administered by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. This program would provide funds for private MFL Open roads damaged by public use. The funds for this program would come from the State Forestry Account in the Conservation Fund.
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
It’s difficult to anticipate all the repercussions if this bill were to become law. Among the many questions and concerns are:
1. Will the Forestry Account have ample funding to pay for all road damage?
2. Will administration of the rules on compensation for road damage be efficient? How will it be determined if damage was caused by owners or others? How will it be determined if damage is significant enough to qualify for reimbursement? How quickly will the fund pay for road repairs? One can easily imagine a hunter arriving on his land before deer season, only to find extensive enough road damage such that he can’t make it into his hunting cabin. Will there be ample contractors and materials to timely repair the damage that is done?
3. How will damaged roads affect the ability of landowners to conduct timber harvests while waiting for funds and contractors to repair roads? How much less stumpage will timber harvesters be willing and able to pay to landowners if they have to contend with damaged roads?
4. Will the payment for damage to roads reduce the availability of Forestry Account Funds used for other purposes? That account currently pays for such things as development and care of forests, operation of forests for social and recreational activities, aid in lieu of taxes paid to local governments, maintenance of boating access sites, chronic wasting disease research, and more. If road repair is added, will additional funds be needed, and if so, who will bear the tax burden?
5. No provision is made for damage to land and vegetation adjacent to roads. It’s common to see areas adjacent to forest roads torn up by ATVs and vehicles. Apparently, landowners alone will have to bear those burdens.
6. No provision is made for compensation for vehicle caused fires in sensitive habitats such as pine barrens during dry times. Is it fair for landowners who are maintaining valuable habitat to suffer preventable forest fires?
7. Was any consideration given to landowners who are trying to foster the growth of native species on their land and who don’t want to contend with damage to those species and invasive species that may be transferred by vehicular traffic?
8. Was any thought given to the fact that snowmobiles can cause snow compaction and ice creation that can make break-up time logging difficult or impossible?
9. No provision is made for the clean-up of trash dumped by users. In Oneida County, roads on industrial lands have previously been gated
after extreme incidents of littering have occurred. On such lands and on public lands, I have seen: old refrigerators and other large appliances; an old kitchen counter top; sofas and chairs; and a roll of carpeting discarded in a stream. Apparently, landowners will have to suffer the litter clean-up costs.
10. If landowners are forced to remove gates at public roads, and place gates near their cabins, access by thieves will be made much easier. Is it fair for landowners to bear this risk?
11. How many landowners will be unable to tolerate damage, littering and lack of privacy and elect to simply switch to Closed MFL, or withdraw from or never enter MFL, thus limiting access to lands for hunting and other recreation? If this bill becomes law, will there ultimately be less available recreational land in Wisconsin? In the case of withdrawal/failure to enroll, what effect will this have on the forest products industry?
12. How many large industrial/investment landowners will be unable to tolerate damage and littering, be unable to afford to move the limited amount allowed into Closed MFL and withdraw remaining land and simply chop their land into small parcels and sell it? What effect will this fragmentation have on the forest products and outdoor recreation industries and on wildlife habitat?
13. How much tax increase will be caused for landowners who elect to move land into closed MFL or withdraw it from MFL altogether? Would it have been fiscally wiser to simply maintain the yield tax and not force owners to allow vehicle traffic on their land?
14. How many hunters will have their hunts disrupted as cars and ATVs drive on private roads during hunting season?
15. Was any consideration given to landowners and MFL users (hikers etc.) who would like a quiet experience for hunting, wildlife photography, or otherwise?
16. Will some of these trails end up getting heavy enough use that they will become de facto heavy-use recreational trails, but without the signage, downed tree clean-up and other safety measures that state funded/club-maintained trails have? How many injuries and deaths will occur? Who will be liable?
SUMMARY
SB999 seems to raise more questions than it provides answers. The MFL program and its predecessor have worked well for nearly 100 years without this sort of forced infringement on private property rights. There are existing ways to establish reasonable motorized traffic on private lands. One example is the use of voluntary conservation easements, such as the Pelican River Forest Easement. In that case, a large landowner sold the state an easement that requires that most roads on a huge parcel of land be open to the public most of the year. That project was funded mostly by the federal government with royalties received from offshore oil and gas drilling, with matching funds from private entities. That project includes a fund that will pay for road damage without taxpayer funds having to be used. That sort of voluntary program seems much more in line with Wisconsin values than SB 999, which forces landowners to open roads in a way that will subject them to unreasonable damage.
Also see Wisconsin's Green Fire response here WGF Opposes SB 999 - Changes to Managed Forest Law • Wisconsin’s Green Fire (wigreenfire.org)
By Beckie Gaskill February 20, 2024- Much has been written in recent years about lead poisoning in loons, bald eagles and other raptors. In fact, a recent statistic from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) showed 15% of bald eagle deaths in Wisconsin were attributed to lead toxicity. A recent study showed a spike in bald eagle mortalities starting in October and lasting through December, which could be attributed to lead ammunition during the hunting season, but that does not negate the impact of lead fishing tackle on waterfowl and even raptors. Waterfowl can ingest lead tackle and raptor such as bald eagles eat fish, which can be another source of consumption of lead tackle.
Humans removed lead from gas, paint and other items years ago. We understand the dangers of lead. Yet some still use lead tackle.
Lead tackle such as sinkers would not be a problem if they always made it back to the boat or the bank, where they could be disposed of properly. But that is often not the case. Split shots, sinkers and worm weights often wound up snagged in wood or on rocks. Sometimes we, as anglers, even lose the occasional worm weight in a fish. It happens.
Luckily, for both the environment and anglers, there are alternatives to lead tackle today. Rather than lead split shots, bismuth split shots are a great alternative. I do not do a lot of split shotting, but I have used bismuth split shots when I do, and they perform the same. They are soft enough to be used in the same ways, and, honestly, I feel they offer a bit better feel of the bottom composition.
If an angler is looking to be able to feel the bottom better, tungsten, in my opinion, is the way to go. This is another lead-free alternative. It is a bit more expensive and, for a tournament angler such as me, that can add up, but it is worth it. Not only is tungsten more environmentally friendly, but the feel is head and shoulders over the feel of the old lead weights. Most tournament anglers have moved to all tungsten weights for worm weights, drop shot weights. The feel is much better, and the size of the weight is smaller because tungsten is denser than lead. Some anglers believe the smaller size for the same weight helps them catch more fish because the fish do not see the weight. That could be true – not being a fish, I cannot speak to that, but the idea does seem to have merit.
Another alternative to lead is brass. I use brass weights on a Carolina rig. I like the click of the brass weight against the glass bead. It is supposed to mimic the sound of a crayfish snapping its pinchers together. With crayfish being one of the main prey of bass and other species, that sound, at least in an angler’s mind, should put more fish in the boat.
I would be remiss if I did not also talk about limestone sinkers. RockyBrooK Sinkers has been one of my tournament sponsors for going on a decade now. They are from West Virginia, and lead tackle on the East Coast has been banned in many places. I have used their limestone drop shot sinkers and river/pond sinkers quite a bit in over the years. They have so many different applications. The smallest of sinkers I will use on top of a shakey head, sitting freely above the jig, for extra “clacking” noise as I move the bait through the water.
I also use their worm weights on a Carolina rig. The sound of that limestone hitting rock and other structure on the bottom is so different that it brings fish over to check it out. Again, it is more like a realistic clicking of crayfish pinchers.
Their river/stream weights I use on a modified Jika rig. But there are a ton of other uses for those as well.
The drop shot weights are great because I can choose different shapes and sizes for any application. Should I lose one, losing a limestone sinker is much more friendly to the wallet than losing a tungsten sinker, and that is never a bad thing.
In the long run, getting lead tackle out of the tacklebox is the best idea. There are plenty of great alternatives on the market today. The bonus for anglers is that many of those have big benefits to the angler, as well as to the environment.
Beckie Gaskill is a freelance outdoor and environmental writer as well as a content creator. She runs her own podcast as part of her media company FlaG (Fish Like a Girl) Media. She is a Master Naturalist and sits on the board of several different conservation organizations. She has also started her own digital magazine, The Wisconsin Conservationist. More information regarding that magazine can be found on her website: The Wisconsin Conservationist Magazine – All the news that is important to you (wordpress.com)
OCCWA Note: Please consider supporting (REGI) Raptor Education Group, Inc. out of Antigo who rescue and rehabilitate all types of birds, including those that suffer from lead poisoning. Marge Gibson and her staff are Nothern Wisconsin treasure.
.
REGI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to the care and rehabilitation of injured or orphaned native bird species and public education of wildlife issues. Founded in 1990 by Marge and Don Gibson, REGI was initially focused on educational programming and field research on avian species, but quickly grew to address the need for a rehabilitation center in the area, especially for raptors and swans. Today, REGI takes in anywhere from 800 to over 1,000 patients each year and provides educational programs to hundreds of people.
More info from Regi on the hazards of lead Going Lead Free — Raptor Education Group, Inc.
Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA) invites Texas based Pelican River Forest opponent to speak. April 12, 2024- A recent Wisconsin Examiner article by Henry Redman covers Texas based American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) speaker Margaret Byfield's presentation at the GLTPA Spring Celebration. Leader of anti-conservation group speaks at timber conference sponsored by UW-Madison center • Wisconsin Examiner As you may recall, local officials recently attempted to contest privately owned Pelican River Forest easement funding using ASL like concepts. Congressman Tiffany admitted recommending ASL's Margaret Byfield to local officials in a WPR article Pelican River Forest secures funding, but local leaders want federal grant revoked - WPR " Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, who objected to several land purchases as a state senator, said he suggested local governments work with Margaret Byfield, the executive director for American Stewards of Liberty." Mr. Redman's article shines a bright light on ASL's ideology which was reflected in Byfield's presentation. Notwithstanding the entertainment value, the article must be read to be believed. It is unclear as to how supporting and anti-conservation group benefits local forestry, but GLTPA's response quoted from Examiner article was " Henry Schienebeck, executive director of the GLTPA, said in an email that he wouldn’t comment on what Byfield said during her speech, but said the organization’s members are committed to managing Wisconsin’s forests sustainably."
By Kathleen Cooper December 13, 2023- It’s been a good week for clean water in Oneida County! The Oneida County Conservation Committee has drafted letters to the two committees responsible for hearing the wake boating bill drafted by Senator Mary Felzkowski and State Representative Rob Swearingen (the Assembly and Senate Committees). These letters urge our state legislators to revise the proposed bill to limit wake boating no closer than 500 ft from shore (the original bill allowed wake boating 200 ft from shore), in water depth no less than 30 ft (there are no depth requirements in the original bill), to address the issue of aquatic invasive species transport in ballast water (the original bill does not address this issue), and to maintain local control over this issue (the original bill removes all local control of this issue). If adopted, the limits expressed in the letter would be the most aggressive limits on wake boating in the nation, limits which are much more aligned with independent research. Independent research indicates that wake boating should only be allowed on lakes 1500 acres or larger, at least 600-700 feet from shore, in depths of at least 20-30 ft, and that ballast tanks should be thoroughly cleaned and inspected after use to prevent the spread of invasive species from lake to lake.
The members of the Conservation Committee deserve our recognition for this action that will help to keep our lake environments safer and protect lake habitat for generations to come. The committee members are Jim Winkler (chair), Robb Jensen (vice chair), Linnaea Newman, Tommy Ryden, and Collette Sorgel. If you have time, please email them for supporting lake habitat and the science behind preserving it.
In other developments, the Oneida County Board of Health unanimously passed a resolution on December 12 asking for the testing of the sludge that is being spread on local fields for PFAS, as well as the testing of private wells within a two-mile radius of these spreading sites for PFAS, to be paid for by the DNR and/or the state. This resolution will now go before the Oneida County Board in January. Many thanks to Linda Conlon, the director of the Oneida County Health Department, and to the members of the Board of Health Committee: Tom Kelly (chairman), Debbie Condado, Mike Roach, Billy Fried, and special thanks to Scott Holewinski for his support. Please contact your county board supervisors to let them know how you feel about this important resolution.
In these times of division, our legislators have come together, recognized the importance of these issues for our lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, and have taken these important steps to preserve our water. They deserve our thanks and support on these Clean Water issues.
Oneida County Conservation Committe email addresses.
jwinkler@co.oneida.wi.us
rjensen@oneidacountywi.gov
lnewman@oneidacountywi.gov
tryden@oneidacountywi.gov
csorgel@oneidacountywi.gov
By Tommy Burrell November 8, 2023- "The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee is revising the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The existing 2013 Plan includes a Public Participation Goal: “[to] inform, consult and involve the public and the communities served during each phase of the planning process.”
At the committee’s October 18th, meeting, I offered a brief “public comment.” In light of the public participation goal, I suggested that the Chapter 2 (“Natural Resources”) discussion of metallic mining would be the perfect place to include the Lynne Mine Referendum — as an indication of public opinion.
See November 2018 Referendum coverage Local Groups (Once Again) Stand Up to Mining Threats - River Alliance of WI (wisconsinrivers.org)
Scott Holewinski, chairmen of the committee and of the Board of Supervisors, did not think that would be appropriate because future supervisors might think that they were bound by it. Mike Timmons, Supervisor, responded that the referendum could be included with sufficient detail.
Sam Wessel, Senior Planner at the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, later commented that the Lynne referendum information could be inserted in Chapter Two.
Each chapter of the Plan ends with “Goals, Objectives, and Policies.” Under the existing Plan, Ch 2 (2013), the first Goal is to improve and enhance natural features such as shorelands. The first Policy is to “Conserve and enhance shoreland areas by minimizing impacts from land-disturbing activities.” Holewinski said, “Strike that.” It was not clear whether he meant the policy, the goal or both. He and Mike Roach, Supervisor, agreed that the existing wording could cause a loss of property owner control and value.
Goal 2 of the existing plan is to “Conserve and enhance large tract woodlands and County Forests.” The committee agreed to strike or modify this goal. As written, they feel that it could be used in the future to stop development. Holewinski stated that county forests are already protected. He believes that the reason to have Managed Forest Lands is to save the land for future development. Holewinski opined that the committee needed time to consider all the goals and discuss them further at a later meeting. He commented, “These goals sound like they came out of a magazine.”
Oneida County 2013 Comprehensive Plan link- Microsoft Word - OC Element 1April 2013 (oneida.wi.us)
As you can see, our County Board Supervisors are revamping the Comprehensive Plan to ensure and facilitate future development. The existing plan states that the County public participation goal includes informing, consulting and involving us. However, you feel about these issues, now is the time to let our supervisors and the public know your views.
OCCWA Helpful Reference*
Refer to Wikipedia Comprehensive Plan definition to better understand it's importance.
"Comprehensive planning is an ordered process that determines community goals and aspirations in terms of community development. The end product is called a comprehensive plan, also known as a general plan, or master plan. This resulting document expresses and regulates public policies on transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing. Comprehensive plans typically encompass large geographical areas, a broad range of topics, and cover a long-term time horizon. The term comprehensive plan is most often used by urban planners in the United States.
Each city and county adopts and updates their plan to guide the growth and land development of their community, for both the current period and the long term. This "serious document" is then the foundation for establishing goals, purposes, zoning and activities allowed on each land parcel to provide compatibility and continuity to the entire region as well as each individual neighborhood. It has been one of the most important instruments in city and regional planning since the early twentieth century."
By Kathleen Cooper June 16, 2023- The latest funding bill proposed by the Wisconsin legislature seems to be the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for local governments. The latest funding bill proposed by the Wisconsin legislature seems to be the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for local governments.
While it raises funding for most municipalities in Wisconsin by 15%, (but only 10% in Democratically controlled Milwaukee, stating that Milwaukee, unlike other cities, would be able to increase sales taxes themselves) there are some alarming proposals included.
This bill would ban local advisory referenda questions on everything except for certain projects that would be funded with property tax money. It would also mandate that local governments approve projects under the state’s land stewardship program that are north of US Highway 8, which runs across the northernmost quarter of the state. Removing the ability of local governments to establish rules pertaining to the use of quarries is also included in this proposal.
The ban on referenda would effectively silence the voices of the people of the State of Wisconsin and leave the fate of widely unpopular programs and proposals to the state and county governments. While this sounds reasonable, many times our own governments, whether state or local, do not vote in favor of what the majority of their constituents want, as evidenced by the recent votes concerning the Pelican River Forest by the Joint Finance Committee and the Oneida County Board. In spite of overwhelming public support, both governing bodies voted against the acquisition of conservation easements in the PRF.
This is reminiscent of 2018, when the Oneida County Board was veering toward allowing a mining company to begin drilling core samples in wetlands adjacent to the Willow Flowage in the Town of Lynne. The public outcry prompted the county board to hold a non-binding referendum on the Lynne mine, which resulted in an overwhelming bipartisan rejection of mining, specifically for the Lynne mine, but also generally for Oneida County as a whole. Without the right to hold this referendum, Oneida County may have had to allow a mine in this priceless habitat and these pristine waters.
Now our state legislators are proposing to remove the last hope of the public of having any opportunity to go on record regarding legislation. Since our own representatives have not voted in favor of popular opinion many times in the past and have in fact publicly stated that they do not “vote the way their constituents want,” these referenda are vital. These referenda allow the people to have a voice. Why do our legislators see that as a problem so terrible that they have to write a law against it? The referenda are non-binding, after all.
If this proposal passes, the next step will be, against the will of the people of Oneida County and northern Wisconsin, the establishment of a sulfide mining district that includes all of northern Wisconsin. In spite of what the mining companies say, this will be devastating for our lakes, rivers, and forest habitat. Please speak out to our legislators and tell them that the people of Oneida County and northern Wisconsin want to have a voice and want to continue to be heard.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage of proposed bill here GOP releases bill to increase money for Wisconsin local governments
Direct quote from the June 16th, Felzkowski Flyer emailing on banning advisory referenda.
"Preventing local governments from using hot-button political advisory referendums, on issues they have no direct control over, to increase partisan voter turnout."
Please note the assertion "issues they have no direct control over
Update July 17 2023- From a recent Wisconsin Examiner article, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) along with Wisconsin Dairy Alliance (WDA) have joined in a lawsuit to exempt Factory Farms from WDNR permit requirements. One more reason why Oneida County should reconsider their postponed Manure Storage Ordinance. CAFO owners suing to end DNR permits have spilled more than 26,000 gallons of manure - Wisconsin Examiner
By Kathleen Cooper July 13, 2023- The waters and ecosystems of northern Wisconsin face yet another environmental threat - besides PFAS, sulfide mining, and local leaders who favor corporate interests instead of residents. This is the threat of CAFO’s being established in our Northwoods.
CAFO stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and refers to facilities that house 1000 or more “animal units”. These facilities can include meat, dairy, or egg operations where animals are kept and raised in confinement. Instead of grazing or eating in pastures, in fields, or on rangelands, animals are confined in small spaces and fed until they are ready for slaughter.
These CAFO’s pose many problems for the surrounding environment. They affect air quality, groundwater and surface water quality, land use, quantity and quality of nearby drinking water wells, damage to local roads from heavy truck traffic, and increased odors and noise. In other words, they stink and cause contamination to our precious, pristine environment because of the huge amounts of manure produced daily, which has to be spread on fields, causing runoff into our lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. In Wisconsin, 90% of all groundwater pollution comes from fertilizer and manure application.
Our neighbors in Polk County in northwestern Wisconsin are facing this threat now. When Cumberland LLC proposed establishing a swine operation that would house up to 26,350 pigs, small municipalities in the area such as Laketown passed ordinances to regulate how the CAFO’s can operate. Laketown’s rules applied to operations with 700 or more “animal units,” and required applicants to submit plans for preventing infectious diseases, air pollution and odor, managing waste, and handling dead animals, as well as mandating traffic and property value impact studies, a plan for clean-ups, and permit fees. This ordinance did not affect existing livestock facilities, unless they changed owners.
However, Wisconsin’s “right to farm” and livestock facility laws rebuff local control over CAFO’s, because regulating livestock operations, but not banning them or restricting their locations, could enable communities to sidestep the state laws, possibly affecting the state’s $104.8 billion agricultural industry. Big farming and dairy interests are threatening to sue the small towns in Polk County, including Laketown and Bone Lake. Usually when this happens the small towns cave to the power and money of the big farming interests, but so far the tiny municipalities in Polk County have stood their ground.
Last year, a manure storage ordinance that could have provided the residents of Oneida County with a buffer to the establishment of a CAFO here by powerful business and farming interests was rejected by our County Board. One farmer, who’s operation was not affected by the regulations proposed, objected. One farmer. Without some sort of regulatory safety net, Oneida County is an easy target for these CAFO’s, with all their stink and pollution. If you have ever driven past a huge swine operation and taken a whiff, you know what this entails.
Here is an excellent article from Barn Raising Media Regulating CAFOs Hits Snag in Wisconsin - Barn Raiser (barnraisingmedia.com)
Grist article covering town vs CAFO legal battle A Wisconsin town tried to stop factory farm pollution. Then got sued. | Grist
Link to Oneida County Land and Water January 2022 update Manure Storage - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation (oclw.org)
By Eric Rempala January 16, 2023- Yes, yes, what next? As Oneida County reels from a recent PFAS discovery a WXPR piece reveals rising levels of salt in local lakes. What is encouraging is that levels are not so high yet to cause declines in macroinvertebrates and zooplankton which are the bottom of the food chain supporting fish populations.
A recent WXPR article by Katie Thoreson covers this issue in more detail. Rising chloride levels in Lake Julia spur action by Lake Association members to reduce salt use in the area | WXPR
I would like to commend both Sue and Bob Thome as well as the Lake Julia Lake Association for their efforts to bring this issue to the forefront. It is these types of actions from local residents that help protect our water. Let's hope going forward a proactive and effective approach will be implemented.
By Karl Fate
June 10 2022- Over the last 35 years I have attended many meetings in the Oneida County Courthouse and the proceedings were never overtly about partisanship or political ideology, but about issues impacting the County, that is how County business is supposed to be conducted.
That all changed when State politician Tom Tiffany decided to meddle in a County Board election. Since that time a certain threatening atmosphere began permeating our Courthouse whenever Tom Tiffany wanted Supervisors to vote a certain way. This culminated in a threat being heard in our County, that the State would take over the Lynne Site and strip the County of local control, if the referendum question on leasing the Lynne Site failed. Fortunately, the voters didn’t fall for the threat, and they voted the question down. It was an empty threat, they all were.
When Supervisors vote against local control, it doesn’t matter what their political party or political ideology is. When Supervisors vote to spend $60,000 to remove protections from their own County, it doesn’t matter what their political party or political ideology is. Everyone in Oneida County should be wondering, who is it that benefits by pitting neighbor against neighbor based on politics? Could it be that someone wants to distract us from what is really going on in our own Courthouse? It is despicable that a local newspaper has been stoking these divisions.
There are several new Supervisors in Oneida County. Most of the incumbent Supervisors voted to remove an important local control from much of the County, and to eliminate several important protections, while spending $60,000 to do it. Some of them were all in on removing these protections, others perhaps, were intimidated into going along.
What is most troubling about what a prior Board did, is that protections for their own County, and the people who live and work here, were removed to promote one the most destructive activities on the Planet, Sulfide Mining, in one of the most water-rich regions of the Planet. And to top it all off, they paid tens of thousands of dollars to have these protections removed and were persuaded to do so with arguments that were utter hogwash.
These are mistakes that can be fixed, but will the new Board have the wisdom to do it?
By Eric Rempala
March 18, 2022- A recent attempt to change the Knowles Nelson Stewardship has caught our attention here at OCCWA. Assembly Bill 852 presented by Calvin Callahan and Senate Bill 802 presented by Mary Felzkowski on January 18th proposed changes that would make it easier to sell land acquired with Knowles Nelson funding. The Bills were quickly contested by multiple conservation groups and private citizen comments and drawn back for reconsideration. If not for this immediate push back these Bills may have proceeded to vote.
What is Knowles Nelson? A direct quote from their webpage " The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program is one of Wisconsin’s proudest achievements. Since 1989, Wisconsinites have come together to care for our state’s land and water as well as build the trails, campgrounds, and boat launches that allow us to get out and enjoy Wisconsin. Knowles-Nelson is a rare bipartisan success story. It is an invaluable program that will continue to thrive only with a strong community of supporters who ensure that Wisconsin’s legislators continue to prioritize protected land, clean water, and access to outdoor recreation for every Wisconsin resident."
We in Oneida County have benefitted greatly from the Knowles Nelson program. Since inception Oneida County has had 88 projects supported with a dollar amount of just under $42 million. Projects consisting of land maintenance, trail construction, and upkeep, to land acquisition. Notable areas include Willow Flowage Scenic Waters Area, American Legion State Forest, Northern Highland State Forest, and Bearskin State Trail. Here is a link to a Knowles Nelson project map. https://knowlesnelson.org
Even the most recently proposed Pelican River State Forest is set to receive funding from the Knowles Nelson Stewardship. https://www.conservationfund.org/impact/press-releases/2589-largest-unprotected-forest-in-wisconsin-secured So one wonders what exactly these two recently proposed Bills by two of our county's state reps is truly trying to accomplish and does it reflect the will of their constituents? We will continue to monitor the situation and help to keep you apprised going forward, though not much is expected now until next year.
Below is a link to an article on the attempted Bill proposals
.https://www.wortfm.org/new-bills-would-allow-cities-to-sell-parks-from-knowles-nelson-stewardship/
By Eric Rempala
"At the January 21, 2022 CUW Special Manure Storage Ordinance (MSO) Committee meeting, a motion was made by Roach, seconded by Winkler to postpone the Manure Storage Ordinance until such time as operations exceeding 200 animal units comes into Oneida County with an animal unit equaling 1000 lbs. of live animal weight. Roll call vote: Winkler-aye, Mott-aye, Thome-aye, Engel-aye, Roach-aye, Ives- aye. Motion carried."
https://www.oclw.org/manure-storage.html
The above information is a direct statement from the Oneida County Land and Water Conservation. Included is a link to OCLW with a video of the meeting from which the statement originated from. Special thanks to the OCLW staff for their assistance.
Though disappointed that there was not a motion to forward the proposed Manure Storage Ordinance to the County Board, the decision to postpone was a good one. Postponement was a compromise by the committee as Supervisors Thome and Mott were in favor of the ordinance and Supervisors Winkler, Engel, Roach' and Ives were in favor of table/kill. The decision to postpone keeps the proposed ordinance active and on the books for possible reconsideration at such time as operations exceeding 200 animal units comes into Oneida County. This along with an extension on the CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) moratorium until September 2022 gives hope that Oneida County will be able to protect itself from such largescale farming operations.
The MSO committee did an excellent job cobbling together an ordinance which gives the county the ability to protect itself from such large CAFO operations without adding any additional restrictions to our current farms. It's important to note that the ability to oversee CAFO operations is the main objective of the ordinance. Also, the committee including the ability to revisit the ordinance yearly is a novel approach to updating the ordinance as actual application impacts are considered.
If this type of environmental legislation along with mining and PFAS issues are important to you, then you should consider asking for your County Supervisor candidate's positions on these issues for the upcoming April elections. It is squarely upon the residents and property owners of Oneida County to hold their Supervisors accountable when it comes to protecting our waters. Below are links for current Supervisors and Supervisor candidates for April 5 2022 election.
Current Oneida County Supervisor link https://www.co.oneida.wi.us/government/cb/
Current Oneida County Supervisor Candidates for April 5 Election
By Eric Rempala
Jan. 15, 2022--Oneida County held a public hearing on Jan. 5 to address a proposed Manure Storage Ordinance. View the meeting here: Manure Storage - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation (oclw.org) Currently, while Oneida County has a moratorium on CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), it is one of only 10 Wisconsin counties that does not have a Manure Storage Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would go a long way in providing local protection to these particular animal operations.
We have seen multiple counties with weak local protections deal with the impacts of CAFOs. We applaud Oneida County for their foresight on this issue. Problems that can occur with CAFO operations are, but not limited to, the following:
Monitoring these issues and permitting CAFOs currently falls to the DNR. The DNR is greatly understaffed and underfunded when it comes to this issue. A local ordinance would provide Oneida County with a tool for oversight when necessary. More information on what CAFO oversight means and who pays for it can be found here.
Below is a public comment from Jan. 5 meeting made by Dan Butkus, an Oneida County property owner and water advocate. We feel Dan's comments represent an even-handed approach to protecting Oneida County's water resources, providing another set of eyes on animal operations that can help prevent degradation of our valuable waters.
Public Hearing statement by Dan Butkus
I appreciate the opportunity to make a public comment in support of the proposed Manure Storage Ordinance.
It was hard work to create the ordinance, but I believe it was well worth it. The sole goal was to produce a good ordinance and try to accommodate the concerns of all parties, because that’s what ordinances are for: managing disparate interests over shared use of a resource in the most equitable way possible.
Does everyone get everything they want? No. Compromise is not a dirty word. Those involved tried to find middle ground between farms of all types and residents/visitors who live on or use Oneida County waters for recreation. Both groups contribute to the tax base in this county. Both impact the surface waters of the county through their separate use, in their own way. One does not get to exist at the expense of another.
I believe the draft ordinance represents good work by a group of people who understand the balance of the interested parties. There was give and take all the way around. Additional input was seriously considered. I believe this proposed ordinance is better than many in agriculture-rich counties.
I’ve heard it said that we don’t need an ordinance, there are no CAFOs in Oneida County. I’ve heard that this will hurt small farms. I’ve heard that most small farms already comply with good practices and it’s unnecessary. To those comments, my replies are these. Implementing an ordinance after a CAFO is established is too late. This is a preventative measure. I’ve not seen solid data from the small farms showing how this ordinance will hurt them financially, or how it will negatively impact their day to day operations.
And to the last point, consider this. It is not the farms that follow good practices that worry me. It’s the one or two that don’t. If what they say is true and most are already following good practices, then this ordinance does not affect most small farms. In most cases, small operations won’t be required to obtain a permit. All that is being asked of small farms is that they all use the same guidelines of good practices by keeping manure stacks away from areas that endanger surface and ground water and minimize runoff by standardizing setbacks. If these are the good practices that they claim they are already following, then where is the issue with the ordinance, really?
Lastly, I’d like us to consider that of the 72 counties in Wisconsin, 62 have a Manure Storage Ordinance. Of the 10 that do not, six are in North Central Wisconsin, the area which is most rich with inland lakes in our state: Price, Iron, Vilas, Forest, Florence, and of course Oneida. I think that if counties with more agriculture than Oneida County found it wise to pass a Manure Storage Ordinance, and managed to overcome threading the needle of shared use to accommodate all parties, including small farms, then Oneida County can as well. We only need to follow their lead. I support the manure storage ordinance. Thank you.
The current ordinance proposal is just that: a proposal and yet to be presented to the Oneida County Board for a vote. We at OCCWA recommend residents to monitor this issue and give comment when the public listening session on this ordinance is held. Also, we urge you to give input to your district county supervisor, who will be voting on this issue. You can find your supervisor here.
Wisconsin's Waters Belong to Everyone
Wisconsin lakes and rivers are public resources, owned in common by all Wisconsin citizens under the state's Public Trust Doctrine. Based on the state constitution, this doctrine has been further defined by case law and statute. It declares that all navigable waters are "common highways and forever free", and held in trust by the Department of Natural Resources.
Assures Public Rights in Waters
Wisconsin citizens have pursued legal and legislative action to clarify or change how this body of law is interpreted and implemented. Go to the Wisconsin Department of Resources website to watch videos on how individual Wisconsinites have benefited from these efforts.
Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Copyright © 2024 Oneida County Clean Waters Action - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy