Weakening Shoreland Protection With Tax Dollars?

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) 

UPDATE By Eric Rempala March 31, 2023-  

OCCWA attended the March 29 P&D committee meeting and the following Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance. The end result was a postponement of the proposed amendments until points made during public comment can be considered.  Here are some of the highlights.

    In the committee meeting the P&D members voted to restrict public input during the Public Hearing. Below is a excerpt from the committee agenda NOTICE OF MEETING (oneida.wi.us)  that they voted to apply to the Public Hearing.

  " 4. Discussion/decision concerning public participation for the public hearing portion of the meeting for Ordinance Amendment #06-2022 and Ordinance Amendment #13-2022 for revisions to Chapter 9 of the Oneida County Zoning and Shoreland Protection Ordinance. The committee will be discussing the public participation of the public hearing. The committee will be discussing the following details for participation concerning Item #12 and Item #13:  a. Only allowing constituents who are residents and property tax payers of Oneida County; and 
b. Speakers must be physically present to speak during the public portion of the public hearing; and 
c. All correspondence received via email and/or text message will be made part of the record if 4(a) is met; and 

d. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per person." 

  Looking at Item 4a you will see that non-resident tax paying property owners were not allowed to speak. Item 4b takes direct aim at silencing anyone who attends the meetings via Zoom and wishes to offer comment. 

   The Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association (OCLRA) did a fantastic job of gathering public input by using a ballot method where one could address specific concerns on amendments and present them to the P&D Committee. One hundred and fourteen people took the time to fill out ballots either by paper or electronically. These ballots were presented to the committee during the Public Hearing portion by OCLRA member Bob Mott.

   There was a significant turnout for the process as the county board room was full. During the Public Hearing there was a faction of speakers opposing any changes that weaken water protections. Also, comments were made in favor of some of the amendments, particularly to those which would expedite the permitting process for contractors. One speaker Jimmy Rein stated “There’s a lot of people that aren’t here, that can’t be here that are in favor of this. You guys got elected by these people, put in this position because they want property rights. That’s what you’re doing. You’re doing what the electoral wants you to do. I commend you for that,” said Rein.  See WXPR coverage Oneida County residents give mixed reaction to potential shoreland protection ordinance changes | WXPR On this particular comment we would like to address the consistant argument that working people can't make county meetings. It is true that attending county meetings are not easy for those who work dayshift jobs. That being said referenceing Item 4c "All correspondence received via email and/or text will be made part of the record". So there is the ability for all "those people that aren't here" to give input, they just chose not to. Coming to a meeting and stating there are lots of people who agree with me, sounds like hearsay evidence which we all know is never allowed..

  Another point of contention was a statement from the Wisconsin DNR "At this time the proposed revisions remain out-of-compliance with State Statute and Administrative Code". The fact that the DNR determined that some proposed amendments do not meet State Statute led the committee to try and arrange for a meeting for clarification with the DNR. 

  There is no argument that the permitting process needs to be improved to make it easier for contractors and residents to maintain properties. Making that process easier by way of loosening setback rules, weakening septic field and shoreline vegetation requirements as well as allowing more development nearer to the Ordinary High-Water Mark is not acceptable. Hopefully the P&D Committe will come up with some recommendations we all can agree upon.

BY Eric Rempala March 24, 2023- In the state of Wisconsin shoreland protection begins and ends with our Public Trust Doctrine. One might say this doctrine is woven into the very fiber of who we are as citizens.
   The Public Trust Doctrine applies to all navigable waters, which are defined as any waterway on which it is possible to float a canoe or small watercraft at some time during the year. The Public Trust Doctrine protects the people of Wisconsin’s rights to:

• Transportation and navigation on waterways.
• Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat.
• Recreational activities, including boating, fishing, hunting, trapping and swimming in waterways.
• Enjoyment of scenic beauty while on the water.

 We in the Northwoods are impacted more than most by this doctrine when you consider all our interconnected water resources and how we live and play. Now paying particular attention to the second bullet point above "Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat", one can see how we the public are responsible to protect the water. Having strong Shoreland Protection Ordinances are one way to live up to that responsibility.

  Unfortunately, in July of 2015 the adoption of ACT 55 changed the authority counties have in the development of a shoreland ordinance that is more restrictive than NR 115 and changed other shoreland zoning standards. In essence NR115 standards which were designed to be the minimum have now become both the minimum and maximum. For this reason we at OCCWA have concerns of any further weakening of our county Shoreland Protection Ordinance.   

Which brings us to where we are now with the Oneida County Planning and Development hearing on March 29th. Planning and Development-Hearing – Oneida County, WI  

 The public hearing will be addressing changes to the county's Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) proposed by the P&D committee. Specific changes that weaken the ordinance are being challenged by the Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association OCLRA. We at OCCWA have a great respect for the OCLRA and its board of directors. When it comes to shoreland protection their experience and knowledge are the Gold Standard. Therefore we recommend that our readers consider OCLRA's opposition to particularly concerning P&D proposed changes.

The OCLRA stated multiple concerns in a March 24th opinion piece that you can read here  Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association weighs in on Oneida County Shoreland Protection Ordinance - The Lakeland Times - Minocqua, WI 

 You may request a copy of OCLRA's concerns as well as an opinion ballot that you can share with the P&D committee by emailing to oclra100@gmail.com and asking for an SPO ballot and companion piece.

  Please remember you can send an email or call the P&D committee members with your input at Planning & Development – Oneida County, WI  Just click on the members name which will produce their contact information. Also you could attend the SPO hearing on March 29th and comment in person. Participate in the process!

OCLRA informational links pertaining to SPO provided below

6._buffers.pdf (oclra.org)

15._tipping_point_.pdf (oclra.org)

18._shoreland_zoning_reversal.pdf (oclra.org)

By Dan Butkus

September 20, 2022- It is understood that ordinances attempt to balance environmental protection and public safety against individual property rights.  There is always an ebb and flow depending on the political climate and development of new data.  Recently, however, Oneida County has decided to push the pendulum completely to one side in the name of property rights, individualism, and an unorthodox policy that “I can do what I want on my own property”, even if that is to the detriment to a neighbor, or a lake as a whole. 

It is said that government can work slowly.  And over the years, in Oneida County, this has been very true.  Over the last three years, very few protections were incorporated in the Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO), and some regulations disappeared, such as the piers and docks ordinance.  But they have taken a long time to come to pass and often take a very circuitous route to get there.  The recent wholesale revision of the SPO began over two years ago.  Who would have guessed it would take a sudden U-turn at the last minute?  Instead of bolstering and clarifying the SPO as originally intended, a couple of individuals simply decided to gut the SPO. 

The story can be picked up with single incident of shoreland ordinance violations on Two Sisters Lake back in 2019.  Complaints were filed with Zoning.  A group of citizens along with Zoning and the DNR attempted to tackle the language in the SPO to clarify issues.  It took 16 months from the initial complaint to January 2021 when it was first brought to light at a Planning and Development Committee meeting.  The revision was presented in February 2021 and rejected with derision.  Government works slowly.  Eight months pass, and in August 2021, P&D Committee Chair, Scott Holewinski, expounded on what he would like to see in the SPO revision.  There was a 26 minute discussion asking for what can and cannot be done in the Access and Viewing Corridor.  Most of what was pitched that day would have gotten support from shoreland property owners on not just Two Sisters Lake, but most lakes in the county.  The Zoning Department was given instruction. Five more months elapse when the topic appeared on the January, 2022 P&D agenda.  It is quickly tabled to an unspecified future meeting date.  Two months later, in March 2022, P&D holds a listening session with landscapers.  The SPO revisions languished while county board elections take place and Scott Holewinski is elevated to County Chair, still retaining his seat as Chair of P&D.  Three months after the listening session, publisher Gregg Walker asked to speak to the P&D Committee while Scott is on holiday in Africa.  Mr. Walker spends nearly an hour demanding that the SPO be gutted.  July, 2022 an SPO revision appears.  It is everything Mr. Walker wanted and contained nothing from the years of work and research that came to pass since the complaints on Two Sisters Lake.  Government works slowly, unless and until it doesn’t.  Then it moves so rapidly to undo what took years to create. 

Effectively, the Shoreland Protection Ordinance revision seeks to strip the ordinance of any permitting requirements for land disturbance, construction, and vegetation removal within the Access and Viewing Corridor.  The Wild West is at our doorstep.  It was done in the name of simplification.  It was done in the name of property rights.  But what they won’t tell you is that it was done because they are lazy and find enforcement of ordinances too hard, and beyond their toothless abilities.   

This revision is currently before the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for review.  Initial talk is that the DNR mostly rejects the revisions.  But no matter the final outcome of that review, this is not the end of it.  Planning and Development will continue to look for ways to weaken the ordinance.  The people of Oneida County should be aware that their lake protections are being gutted.  It is time we stand up and oppose this revision.  Eventually, it will have to go to a public hearing.  Make your voices heard.  Write or call your County Supervisor and voice your concerns now.  

As for me, I’d like to know whatever became of the ideas Scott Holewinski generated on August 25th, 2021? They were pretty darned good.  The tabled discussion was never brought back. 

Dan Butkus is a non-resident property owner on Squash Lake.  He is the Treasurer for the Squash Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District, and currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors for Wisconsin Lakes, a state-wide organization for lake associations and lake districts.  He represents the Northern Region for Wisconsin Lakes.  His property on Squash Lake has been in his family for over 65 years.  He currently lives in Waunakee, WI with his wife MaryJane and their dog Max.  He frequently attends Planning and Development meetings via Zoom and stays actively involved in Oneida County environmental affairs. 

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:

• Ground and surface water quality changes.
• Impacts of quantity and quality of nearby water wells.
• Changes in air quality.
• Increased odor and noise complaints.
• Damage to local roads from increased truck traffic.
• Phosphate and nitrate overloading.

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.