By Tom Wiensch November 22, 2023-There’s a machine out there that can rock your world – or at least your fishing boat – and transform your favorite lake, and not for the better. These machines – wake boats - can increase algae and phosphorus, decrease oxygen, change aquatic plant growth, cloud water, erode shorelines, transport invasive species, hurt loon reproduction, and reduce fish numbers.
Wake boats, which can cost as much as $300,000, have special hull designs and other features, usually including large ballast tanks or bags, that create unnaturally large waves so that people can surf behind them. These are very different from traditional water ski boats.
Given the damage they can do, there must already be solid regulations in place on these boats to protect our lakes, right? Wrong.
The tremendous damage that these boats could cause to our lakes has been demonstrated in a number of scientific studies.
The Minnesota College of Science and Engineering’s Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory has studied the effects of wake boats on shorelines and clean water. That institution found that wake boats would need to operate at least 500 feet from shore in order avoid causing more shoreline erosion than ordinary boats do.
A biologist for the Maine Audubon Society echoes the 500’ recommendation, noting also that wakes are also detrimental to loons. Because loons are not able to walk on land, they nest right on the very edges of lakes. Wakes can flood their nests, causing the eggs to float away and never hatch.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) cites a study showing that wake boat propellers generate enough velocity to resuspend sand, silt, and organic material from lake bottoms in water at least 15 feet deep. The MDNR also cites a model that shows that wake boats may actually cause resuspension in depths as great as 33 feet.
The MDNR also cites a study indicating that resuspension of silt etc. decreases water clarity, changes the depth at which aquatic plants grow, increases phosphorus, decreases oxygen, makes it difficult for fish to find food, and decreases fish numbers.
A New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) limnologist reports that resuspension of sediments adds nutrients to the water system, which can cause algal blooms, including harmful cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) reports that exposure to blue-green algae can cause humans to experience mild to severe illness, including organ damage and in rare cases, death. The WDNR also reports that animals, including pets, can become sick and die after being exposed to blue-green algae. Activities like swimming and waterskiing simply aren’t safe in areas with blue-green algae blooms. Although the WDNR website contains a map of beach closings, the department notes that many local health agencies don’t have the ability to test for blue-green algae, and says that “when in doubt, stay out.”
Wake boats also increase the chance of aquatic invasive species being moved from lake to lake. Most of these boats have ballast tanks or bags that hold up to 5000 lbs. of water. The University of Minnesota’s Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center, which is funded by the Minnesota Legislature, has stated that “the best way for invasive zebra mussels to get from one Minnesota lake to another is aboard wake boats”.
The Center also states that “it looks like standard minimal tactics for reducing zebra mussel spread – cleaning the exterior of a boat and removing the drain plug – won’t be enough for wakeboard boat ballast tanks and some other large-volume water holding areas. A hot water flush or five days of drying are the most practical surefire ways to ensure no larvae survive.”
The online magazine “Boating” suggests that when winterizing wake boats, ballast tanks and bags be drained, and that anti-freeze be added. The need for anti-freeze seems to suggest that it is difficult to get all the water to drain from these areas.
The NHDES report also indicates that a very small amount of water left in ballast tanks/bags can contain hundreds of microscopic larvae. Also, that report cites a sea grant study of ballast that found that ballast bags typically contain residual water, that nine of 13 bags tests contained live organisms, that two of 13 contained zebra mussels, and that organisms in the bags had been alive for seven days.
Let’s keep in mind that zebra mussels are only one of many aquatic invasive species that threaten our lakes. Others include Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny water fleas, quagga mussels, and many more. Many of us have seen the enormous mats of Eurasian watermilfoil that have already completely changed the character of some lakes.
As a result of all the threats that wake boats pose, there have been calls for them to be well regulated. Senator Mary Felzkowski and Representative Rob Swearingen have introduced a wake boat bill. The bill prohibits wake surfing and wakeboarding within 200 feet of shorelines and structures, and on lakes under 50 acres or on portions of a bodies of water less than 400 feet in width. Would this bill, if made law, do an adequate job of protecting our lakes? Almost certainly not. Let’s take a look at how much restriction and protection of our waters this bill provides and doesn’t provide:
1. The bill contains absolutely no regulation of wake boats based on water depth, despite the study and modeling showing they can stir up lake-bottom silt in at least 15 feet and maybe as much as 33 of water.
2. With some exceptions, the bill prohibits wake boating within 200’ of shorelines. State law currently provides that no person may operate a motorboat at a speed in excess of slow-no-wake within 100 feet of the shoreline of any lake (200 feet for personal watercraft.) There is an exception in current law for waters on which local ordinances etc. have reduced the limit. There is also such an exception in the bill which would allow local governmental bodies to allow wake boats to operate closer than 200’ from shore.
3. The bill prohibits wake boating in all lakes of less than 50 acres in size. State law already requires that all boats run at slow-no-wake speeds on all lakes of 50 acres or less that have public access.
4. The bill prohibits municipalities and lake districts from enacting rules stricter than those in the bill.
5. The bill also says that the acreage, width and distance from shore provisions don’t apply “to duly authorized wakeboarding or wake surfing tournaments, competitions, exhibitions, or trials therefor where adequate lighting is provided.”
The bill would increase the distance from shore at which wake boating may be done from 100 feet to 200 feet – far short of the minimum of 500’ that the scientific study shows to be necessary. The bill would also ban wake boats on lakes under 50 acres with no public access. While that would be good, it’s hard to imagine that lakes of less than 50 acres would be very attractive to operators of these powerful boats in the first place. Also, the bill carves out exceptions for duly authorized exhibitions, tournaments, competitions, exhibitions, or trials thereof. The bill completely fails to address water depth and sediment resuspension issues or Aquatic Invasive Species issues. In addition, the bill allows local governments to decrease, but not increase the shoreline distance rule.
This bill clearly falls short of what is necessary to protect our lakes from the damage that wake boats can cause.
I wonder how many lake users demand artificial ocean sized waves, as compared to those who simply want to water ski, fish, canoe, kayak, swim, and conventionally boat on our clean lakes? My guess is that the users of these expensive boats represent a very tiny fraction of all lake users.
So, why are Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen sponsoring this bill? Why aren’t they sponsoring a bill that reasonably regulates wake boats in accordance with the available science? Why would they sponsor a bill that fails to address some of the important issues and that would set a distance from shore rule that is much more liberal than what the available science says is necessary? Why would local governments be allowed to set rules decreasing, but not increasing lake protection?
On November 13th, Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen held listening sessions in Rhinelander, Minocqua, and Eagle River. The Northwoods Star Journal reports that Senator Felzkowski said that the bill is “a starting point to a conversation”, adding “And just remember, if we don’t get it right the first time, it doesn’t mean we can’t change legislation.” It’s unclear why the starting point would be so distant from what the actual science suggests, or what possible constituency would be satisfied with a bill that falls short of what science shows to be needed. If the Legislature doesn’t get it right the first time, will it consider the matter disposed of and move on to other business?
The Public Trust Doctrine is supposed to protect our clean lakes so that they can be used use by all of us. Why should the rights of the many who use our lakes for conventional recreation be subservient to the very few who want to surf, or to the industry that markets wake boats? I don’t know the answer to that question, but we sure deserve to find out.
Apart from the few hardy souls who venture out on the great lakes in the fall, Wisconsin has no tradition of surfing. Surfing is done in oceans without the need for wake boats, and, has more recently been done on artificial waves in water parks. Wisconsin does, however, have a long and strong tradition of “going to the lake.” That tradition is critical to the tourism economy of Wisconsin, and extremely important to the lives of many Wisconsin residents. That tradition involves swimming in clean water, fishing for a variety of fish species, cruising in boats, waterskiing, and listening to the loons at dusk.
Is it fair for a relatively few people to risk damaging that tradition so that they can create an artificial water park type atmosphere to play in? Is it fair for those relatively few people to risk aging our lakes, making them greener, dirtier, and more filled with invasive species? Is it fair for those few to risk damaging our shorelines, and reducing the populations of fish and loons? I say “no” to all of those questions. If you agree, please write to your legislators and tell them that you don’t want wake boats churning the silt, eroding the shoreline, transporting invasive species, and reducing the loon and fish populations of our Wisconsin lakes.
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 November 9, 2023, Updated November 21- As if we didn’t have enough threats to our lakes, rivers, and wetlands, another serious issue has developed that can destroy lake habitat and erode the shores. This is the damage that is done to our lakes by wake-enhanced boating.
Wake boats have special ballast tanks designed to increase their displacement and create larger than normal waves for surfing or tubing. Several thousand pounds of lake water are commonly taken into the tanks to increase the wake by weighing down the back of the boat (the stern) and elevating the front (the bow) to produce giant waves. These large wakes impact other lake users, cause erosion to shorelines, flood nests of loons and other wildlife, scour the lake bottom, and damage vegetation. It also interferes with other people’s enjoyment of the lakes, because kayaking, swimming, paddle boarding, sailing, fishing, and pleasure boating can be difficult, if not impossible and dangerous, when wake boats are causing these giant waves. These huge waves also damage docks and the boats moored at the docks, as well as other recreational equipment.
Wake boats typically cost $20,000-$100,000, with most costing over $100,000, making them unaffordable for the average Wisconsinite. The very small minority of people who can afford wake boats are using them at the expense of our lake bottoms, shoreline habitat, and the majority of the people living in the Northwoods who want to fish, swim, kayak, and enjoy our lakes without the disruption and danger of the huge artificial waves that are produced by these boats. In other words, the majority of Wisconsin residents, not only the residents who live on our lakes, but all of us who enjoy outdoor activities on them, are impacted by a minority of people who can indiscriminately destroy them.
Our lakes are facing so many challenges, such as invasive species, the erosion of shorelines and shoreline habitat, pollutants from runoff (salt, fertilizers, PFAS, mining), and now the deliberate damage from the sheer power of wake boats. Just one pass of a wake boat can be devastating to an ecosystem. Multiple passes in the same area cause long-lasting damage to shorelines, water quality, and lake bottoms. In addition, the ballast tanks on wake boats cannot be fully emptied. Ballasted watercraft should not be used in our lakes or moved between lakes unless the ballast tanks have been inspected and decontaminated.
A bill introduced by Senator Mary Felzkowski and Assemblyman Rob Swearingen would prevent wake sports from operating 200 feet from shore, allow wake boating on any lake 50 acres and above, and nullify more restrictive local ordinances on wake surfing. In other words, this bill would take away local control in deciding what is permissible conduct on our lakes. In contrast, currently active studies suggesting that generation of intentionally magnified wakes used for wake surfing may require a minimum distance of 700 feet from shore and other watercraft, operate only in depths of at least 30 feet, and only on lakes larger than 1,500 acres. Obviously, the bill introduced by Felzkowski and Swearingen does not go far enough to preserve our lake quality, and if passed, would take away the rights of local residents to author more restrictive measures that would truly protect our lakes.
If you are concerned about the health of our lakes, not only for our lake ecosystems and habitat, but the quality of life of all of us who enjoy our lakes, please voice your concerns to Senator Felzkowski and Assemblyman Swearingen. They hosted listening sessions on this subject on November 13 in Eagle River, Minocqua, and in Rhinelander. If you weren't able to attend these sessions, you can call or write to them by calling the legislative hotline at 1-800-362-9472.
WXPR coverage here Wake surf legislation introduced in Wisconsin brings boat debate to a head | WXPR
Update By Eric Rempala October 22, 2023- As environmental groups ramp up their efforts to inform the public about Wave Surfing Boat impacts, State Legislators hurry to put in place milquetoast rules sans public input.
In this original September 23rd OCCWA post we shared the many detrimental effects of wave surfing boats. We directed attention to the Last Wilderness Alliance's (LWA) efforts in educating Northwoods residents. Well, not surprisingly things have rapidly changed as the boating industry tries to fast forward favorable legislation.
Senator Felzkowski and Representative Swearingen have proposed a bill to regulate wakesurfing which fails to provide any meaningful protection against the activities impacts. The bill states wakesurfing boats should operate no less than 200ft from shorelines. Current studies are headed to results which will suggest 500ft or more minimum distance from shore should be required. The bill also provides no minimum depth requirements. LWA recommends 20ft depth minimum to prevent lakebed damage.
On top of all that the bill would forbid any town to pass a more protective ordinance to their lakes. The proposed bills result being more stripping away of local control, much like the state's method used in our shoreland protection legislation.
What can we as residents do? Well, Wisconsin Lakes Wisconsin Lakes - Our Mission - Wisconsin Lakes | Wisconsin Lakes has a take action page which will help you find your legislators and email or call to oppose this bill as written. As we have mentioned many times before, we cannot protect our waters without public involvement. We at OCCWA urge you to consider this issue and act using Wisconsin Lakes Take Action page. ACTION ALERT: PROPOSED WAKESPORTS BILL FALLS SHORT - Wisconsin Lakes | Wisconsin Lakes
Three points one should consider making to their legislator.
1) Wave Surf Boat's minimum distance from shore should be 500ft. not 200ft.
2) Wave Surf Boat's minimum depth for operation should be no less that 20ft.
3) The State should put no restrictions on the ability of towns to adopt more restrictive
ordinances if desired.
Here is a 6-minute YouTube video produced by Last Wilderness Alliance showing impacts of Wave Surfing Boats. Wake Surfing - A Threat to Our Lakes - YouTube Must see!
If you are not sure who your legislators are here is a link to find out My Elected Officials (wi.gov)
Lastly, if you wish to attend a LWA presentation on wake surfing, there will be one in Lake Tomahawk on the 27th of October.
By Eric Rempala September 23, 2023- Recently OCCWA attended the town of Lake Tomahawk's September town board meeting. The purpose of this visit was a general update on current water issues in our county. We covered multiple issues including but not limited to PFAS and mining. In our many town visits we attempt to impart information beneficial to making local decisions on water issues, and sometimes we learn of few things ourselves.
What we learned thanks to Lake Tom's insight in inviting the Last Wilderness Alliance Last Wilderness Alliance was that wave surfing boats are incredibly damaging to our lakes if not operated in a responsible manner. What does that responsible manner look like? Well, that is something we think every town should consider. We highly recommend towns consider inviting the Last Wilderness Alliance to present their position. Contact 1 — Last Wilderness Alliance The presentation by John Richter we attended is extremely well produced and impactful. See attached Wave Propagation Impacts.pdf - Google Drive
So, here are a few facts about wave boats gathered from Sierra Club Noth Star Chapter.
" What is a wake boat?
One type of vessel, the wake boat, is exceptionally destructive if operated without care. Tanks at the back of these boats take on thousands of pounds of lake water to increase their weight, a design that causes them to ride bow-up and stern-down. Coupled with powerful motors pointing their propeller at a downward angle, the boats produce strong high-energy wakes and propwash. This allows people to surf untethered behind them.
What is the environmental impact of wake boats?
Just one pass of a wake boat can be devastating to an ecosystem. Multiple passes in the same area cause long-lasting damage to shorelines, water quality, and lake bottoms.
Wake boats erode vulnerable shorelines when the distance to shore is not adequate to dissipate the wakes. The wakes can also damage docks, swamp other boats, endanger swimmers, and destroy waterfowl nesting sites. (Waves affecting loon nest video Please Slow Down for Loons! Boat Wake Hits Loon Nest - YouTube )
The downward angle of the propwash from wake boats causes algae blooms by stirring up sediment and reintroducing sequestered phosphorus and nitrates into the water column. Lake water is warmed by this increased turbidity, making aquatic ecosystems less hospitable for native flora and fauna. Often native plants are uprooted, and fish nests destroyed.
Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) are pumped into the ballast tanks along with lake water. These tanks are difficult to clean and end up spreading AIS to other waterbodies. Until the boating industry improves the tank-cleaning process, wake boats will continue spreading AIS. "
Clearly, one can see what this type of impact could have on the lakes in our area, which is why towns should look at being proactive in educating themselves. For clarification purposes, towns must be the leaders in adopting ordinances to regulate this type of watercraft as the County has no jurisdiction said John Richter.
We have included a photo from the cover of the book Ripple Effects by OCLRA's Ted Rulseh which is an aerial shot of a wave surfing boat and the waves they create.
See Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage here Wisconsin residents seek to minimize damage to nature from wake boats (jsonline.com)
Also see Lake Mildred & Clear Lake Owners Association Facebook video posted July 2nd
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 Eric Rempala
September 30 2022- Wisconsin's Green Fire has released a detailed and important policy assessment report on how the legislature, courts and special interests have re-shaped state government in recent years as a tool that benefits special interests and disempowers state agencies and the public on environmental policies.
We at OCCWA have opined in the past that Wisconsin's State Legislature has taken action to strip away local control. We feel it is imperative to return more environmental decision making to the local citizens and towns directly impacted by projects which put their water at risk. This report by Wisconsin's Green Fire documents in great detail how the loss of local control was accomplished. We hope that this report assists in providing information and a path to restore that which has been taken. Below are excerpts from the report of some of these actions.
" * 2011 Wisconsin Act 21, which gave significant new powers to the legislature and limited agency authority in reviewing and approving new administrative rules.
* 2017 Wisconsin Act 57, which further limited agencies’ ability to develop administrative rules by establishing lower thresholds for economic impact analysis and allowing legislative committees to block rules for indefinite periods of time.
* 2017 Wisconsin Act 39, which created a 30-month deadline for development of new administrative rules and nullified all work on any rules not completed in that time frame.
* A series of legislative changes between 2011 and 2018 removed local control from communities, preventing them from developing locally-based standards for environmental protection.
* Coordinated efforts between Wisconsin Senate leadership and appointees of Gov. Scott Walker’s administration to prevent Governor Tony Evers from seating appointees, including seats on the Natural Resources Board. "
We are providing links below of Green Fire's press release and detailed report.
Press Release
Detailed Report
WGF_2022_OppNow_ImbalancePower_Final-web.pdf (wigreenfire.org)
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.
Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Copyright © 2024 Oneida County Clean Waters Action - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy