September 20, 2021 at 12:54 p.m.
Oneida land and water committee reviews draft manure storage ordinance
Goal is to streamline ordinance for small farmers
Oneida land and water committee reviews draft manure storage ordinance
Farm Services Bureau representative and land and water committee member John Engel felt the draft ordinance, as it stood, had the possibility to create undue hardships of sorts for smaller operators and asked the subcommittee to take that into consideration when looking to make revisions and definitions of certain terms. Engel asked the committee to use United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Code 318, which deals with short-term storage of animal waste and by-products, as a reference for the Oneida County manure storage ordinance.
During the Sept. 13 land and water conservation committee meeting, the members reviewed the changes made and spoke about what the subcommittee used from the Code. However, as county conservationist Michele Sadauskas told the committee, it was felt that some of USDA Code 318 made Chapter 28, the manure storage ordinance, more confusing and more restrictive, not more flexible for small farms.
She said an attempt was made to bring a large part of 318 into the Oneida County ordinance, but it seemed to make things more challenging and burdensome, so the subcommittee took a bit different tack.
Dan Butkus of the Town of Crescent, as well as Tom Jerow of Rhinelander, offered their expertise in these areas to the subcommittee. Butkus said he and Jerow read through Code 318 and appreciated Engel's concerns as the guidance document did hold value. However, there were some things that muddied the waters.
"We're starting to write in things like, OK, if you cover it, you have to cover your manure with a 6-mil tarp," Butkus said. "It has to be secured to the ground with stakes two feet apart. The overlap of adjoining tarps has to be 24 inches and it continues to go on and on with a tremendous amount of detail. Okay, and where do you stop adding detail?" He said he and Sadauskas felt that language was much more restrictive than was being asked and looked for a way to create the ordinance in a simpler manner.
One of the final draft items undertaken was uncovered manure. Butkus said it was written in to be allowed as long as it was not within the water quality management area. If a manure stack must be within a water quality management area due to spacial restrictions, he said, it was written into the ordinance that it must be covered. The subcommittee did not specify how, as the wish was for flexibility. This would apply, he said, to manure stacks greater than 175 cubic feet, which is the volume of a manure spreader hopper. The ordinance, he said, was silent on stacks with less volume.
The ordinance draft would create setbacks for a covered temporary manure stacks not within a water quality management area. This setback would provide protection for lakes, wetlands and streams or creeks. The setback from a lake, stream or creek would be 250 feet. The setback from a wetland would be 100 feet. The time limit for a covered stack to qualify as "temporary" would be six months under this draft ordinance. It was felt this could offer small farmers flexibility.
"I like it much better than where we were a month ago, and I compliment you for - you say you did not adopt 318, but I think you did adopt the key elements of 318, so thank you for doing that," Engel said.
The summary, he said, was particularly helpful and would help others determine if this would be useful for the county. "With that said, I still fundamentally disagree that we need an ordinance, Ok? But nonetheless, if we're going to have one and that's what the majority wants, you've done a good job."
There was some additional discussion, as the ordinance would apply to not only manure but to compost.
Committee chairman Bob Mott felt it was an interesting question and Engel himself said he was not sure at what point manure would become soil or something that would be considered "OK," to have stacked somewhere. It was a gray area for all on the committee, and Mott asked Sadauskas to look to other counties who already have such verbiage in their ordinances. She said she felt it was meant for a working compost pile, but would reach out to other counties if the committee wanted her to do so.
Butkus said he would be satisfied with taking the word "compost" out of the ordinance altogether as adding all of the wording needed would make the ordinance that much more confusing. But there was still some interest in learning how other counties have dealt with that part of their ordinance. Jerow said he felt the committee could come up with a definition of compost versus manure, but there would still be some professional judgment and it would be up to interpretation simply due to the nature of the topic.
Mott asked if Engel had had a chance to talk with other small farmers about the ordinance. Engel said he had.
"The general feedback is why, right?" he said. "I mean is it a problem, I mean why do we need that kind of ordinance? Why do we need that? I think you can understand, if you have not had that kind of restriction in the past and we're assuming that our lakes are clean today, then why would we need that in the future?" He said he could see the argument either way, but wanted to convey the general response to the committee.
"I think it's a good question," Mott said. "and obviously you don't create things just to create them so that will be something our committee will talk about and hopefully address clearly."
Jerow said in his time working on these issues with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), there were a few instances were water quality problems arose due to stacking manure too close to lakes, rivers or streams. He worked with the land conservation department to provide technical assistance or funding to correct the issues. The last tool in the toolbox, he said, would involve issuing citations. Land conservation departments, he said, often work with farmers and producers, who are viewed as their customers, to rectify issues without moving to the enforcement tool. In many instances, he said, he found the small farmer was not aware of the issues their actions may cause, as they have been doing the same things for generations. Jerow said it was important to not only provide education to those farmers but also to provide solutions.
"We don't want to be out there citing people for things we don't need to be citing them for," Butkus said in a comment during the meeting, echoing Jerow's feelings. "From the beginning, I don't think any of us involved with this ordinance intended to ensnare small farmers. The original intent was for large farms, a CAFO (Confined Animal Feed Operation), that kind of thing, as a preemptive, looking down the road."
Mott said the ordinance was looking to the future and looking to possibilities that may arise.
"Certainly, if we had specific problems, we would have a way to address those, if there's runoff issues or whatever, that are polluting streams or rivers," Mott said.
Mott said the draft of the ordinance was currently sitting with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) with the changes that were made. From there, it would be up to DATCP to make recommendations and would come back to the committee who would then review any changes the department requested.
Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.