CRAWFORD COUNTY – How substantially distinction can a year can make? In December 2019, the Crawford County Land Conservation Committee voted to recommend to the Crawford County Board of Supervisors that they vote to enact a just one-calendar year CAFO moratorium. The moratorium would consist of a provision that it could be prolonged by the board for up to one a lot more yr.
In September of 2020, irrespective of the actuality the COVID-19 pandemic, delayed the Driftless Place Drinking water Study, and prevented the Crawford County CAFO Research Group from meeting, the Land Conservation Committee voted not to suggest a just one-yr extension.
What is the variance? The most apparent change is in the management of the committee. In 2019, the committee chairman was Buzz Esser, who has given that retired. Another variance is that the recent committee chairman Don Olson voted for the moratorium in 2019, and against its extension in 2020. Nonetheless yet another variance is that Supervisor Wade Uninteresting was absent for the 2019 vote, and current to vote for an extension in 2020.
When asked at the September 2020 meeting of the CAFO Review Group why he experienced voted towards extension of the moratorium, chairman Don Olson had this to say:
“My vote was dependent on the just one-calendar year time limit, and we do not have to have a rationale,” Olson stated. “But if you want to know my explanation, it is due to the fact I do not imagine we ought to stand in his [AV Roth’s] way if his procedure is alright with state and federal legal guidelines.”
Land Conservation Committee member Kim Moret’s vote in opposition to enactment or an extension was the exact in 2019 and 2020. When questioned what her reason was, she experienced this to say:
“I voted the way I did to stay clear of a lawsuit that will price the county taxpayers dollars we really don’t have,” Moret reported. “Do we want all people to shift out of our county mainly because they can not build a organization right here?”
But by considerably, the biggest variation in the two meetings is that County Board Chair Tom Cornford, who never or not often attends Land Conservation Committee meetings, was not current at the December 2019 meeting, but was current at the September 2020 meeting to forged the vote that prevented a 2-e2 tie.
What was the identical at both equally conferences was that the motions to produce a CAFO Moratorium, and to lengthen the moratorium for a different 12 months, were being the two produced by the Farm Products and services Agency (FSA) member of the Land Conservation Committee. In 2019 it was Don Dudenbostel, and in 2020 it was Bob Standorf.
Legality of mortorium
In December of 2019, the Crawford County Land Conservation Committee voted 3-1 to advocate passage of a one particular-yr moratorium on permitting of livestock services with much more than 1,000 animal units in the county at their December 2019 assembly.
Voting for the moratorium were being Buzz Esser, Don Dudenbostel and Dave Olson voting against the moratorium was Kim Moret. Wade Boring remaining that assembly in advance of the vote was taken.
Committee Chair Excitement Esser experienced queried county corporate counsel Mark Peterson about whether a CAFO moratorium enacted by the county would be authorized.
“If Crawford County ended up to enact a CAFO moratorium, they would be doing exercises a legit dwelling rule authority,” Peterson stated.
At the December 2019 assembly, Midwest Environmental Advocates attorney Adam Voskuil explained to the board why Crawford County Corporate Counsel Mark Peterson was accurate about the legality of the moratorium, and signed off on the edition that authorized for up to a 12-thirty day period extension:
“I’d like to place out that the county is acting in just its authority by passing a moratorium which offers time for Crawford County to produce area laws in accordance with ATCP 51,” Voskuil reported. “A moratorium is not a permanent ban, but as a substitute an opportunity to fully evaluate scientific scientific studies and build far more stringent benchmarks that shield public health, basic safety, and welfare.”
Moret’s legal tips
At each and every meeting of the CAFO Review Group, Crawford County dairy farmer Kim Moret has reminded the team that, in her feeling, Roth Feeder Pigs will sue the county if the CAFO Moratorium causes hold off of approval of the County Livestock Facility Siting Allow.
“If AV sues the county, and the county loses, then the county will have to pay out their lawful payments and AV’s,” Moret has mentioned repeatedly. “And now, a news write-up has arrive out that suggests that Polk County’s CAFO Moratorium is not legal, and that if the Polk County Board of Supervisors does not abide by the regulation, they could be billed with felonies.”
Very well, Moret was undoubtedly appointed to the Study Group to guarantee that farmer’s voices ended up heard in the procedure. She was likely not appointed to present the Examine Team with legal advice. Crawford County Company Counsel Mark Peterson has never participated in a CAFO Research Team Meeting, in spite of repeated acknowledgements that the group “needed legal guidance.”
So, the county’s corporate counsel, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Customer Safety (DATCP), and an legal professional from Midwest Environmental Advocates all agree that the moratorium, and a just one-12 months extension are fully authorized. And, a regional dairy farmer claims it is not. What is the significance of that?
Polk County problem
The post that Moret referred to involving Polk County’s CAFO Moratorium, was reporting only that Wisconsin Makers & Commerce had a short while ago despatched the Polk County Board of Supervisors a letter which encouraged them not to vote for a just one-year extension of their CAFO moratorium. It also produced an implied threat that by enacting or extending a CAFO Moratorium, the supervisors had been failing to abide by the legislation, and could be charged with “felony ethics violations.”
According to an post by Danielle Kaeding of Wisconsin General public Radio, this is what occurred in Polk County:
“One northern Wisconsin county’s makes an attempt to control substantial-scale hog farms has prompted agriculture and organization groups to issue a letter warning board members they might encounter legal expenses.
“Environmental groups have condemned the move, calling it an act of intimidation.
“On Tuesday, Sept. 22, the Polk County Board weighed a pair of resolutions on whether to lengthen a moratorium on swine concentrated animal feeding functions, or CAFOs, and pass an amended land use ordinance that aims to involve a conditional use permit for significant-scale hog farms. The board voted down an extension of the moratorium, but it handed the amended ordinance.
“The county has been studying nearby regulation of swine CAFOs to protect the ecosystem and community well being in response to a proposed massive-scale hog farm in close by Burnett County.
“The proposals prompted teams like the state’s strong small business foyer Wisconsin Companies and Commerce, Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Enterprise Dairy Cooperative, to deliver a warning letter prior to the board’s meeting. They argued approving the actions could be observed as misconduct in general public office, which they noted is a felony offense less than state legislation.”
“’We’re seriously just asking them to follow the law,’ explained Kim Bremmer, the cooperative’s govt director.
“The groups contend the law does not let a county to pass a moratorium on livestock siting with limited exceptions, and that a Wisconsin Supreme Court docket conclusion has ruled regional regulation of livestock siting is preempted by point out regulation.
Kaeding’s posting proceeds:
“Midwest Environmental Advocates spokesperson Peg Sheaffer said the groups’ letter was outrageous and represented the ‘epitome of bullying.’
“’For supervisors to re-ceive this kind of a threaten-ing letter hours in advance of they are to vote on an situation, you know, a letter that indicates that somehow they are go-ing to be behaving in an illegal way and perhaps even in accordance to the letter committing a felony — it’s just absurd,’ mentioned Sheaffer.
“Sheaffer noted the law permits nearby officers to enact provisions that look for to protect the health and protection of the neighborhood.
Midwest Environmental Advocates Attorney Adam Voskuil responded to WMC’s letter. On September 15, he communicated the pursuing to the chairman of the Polk County Board of Supervisors:
“MEA disputes recent threats of criminal, felony legal responsibility flowing from County Board members’ CAFO regulation votes. This allegation is outrageous and is best viewed as an endeavor to bully local representatives who are trying to find to serve their communities. The legality of a neighborhood ordinance is not resolved by a criminal demo. The simple fact is the authors of the September 14 letter to Chairman Nelson do not and are unable to position to any precedent for a regional formal staying charged in a related problem for the reason that their point out of prison statutes is a hollow gesture meant to intimidate you. In reality, it is inside your authority and obligation as a neighborhood governing administration formal to think about regardless of whether present condition and county laws sufficiently guard your constituents in light-weight of the exclusive environmental, topographic, and associated problems in Polk County.”
The WPR tale continued, with a dialogue of WMC’s position of check out on the subject:
“Cory Fish, typical coun-sel for WMC, argued the letter was intended to be in-formative, and extra that the condition informed the county that disorders inside of the ordinance need to be dependent on science and display standards are wanted to defend well being and safety.
“When asked no matter if the groups would pursue a legal challenge, WMC’s Fish explained they are preserving all solutions open up.
“Polk County Board Chair Chris Nelson wasn’t worried about the letter. He reported various outside groups, no matter whether they’re trying to find to guard the setting or producers’ suitable to farm, have been hoping to impact the area approach.”
“’I’m pretty relaxed that our board is running inside of the legal bounds and state statutes, and adhering to our oath of office environment,’ stated Nelson.
“Nelson claimed the county knowledgeable troubles making local rules in line with what inhabitants needed for the reason that they ended up at odds with state law.
“The board passed an amended land use ordinance on September 22, directing the county’s environmental providers committee to continue do the job to refine it. The board also directed its Health and Human Providers Board to continue on work on a CAFO functions ordinance.”
The Crawford County CAFO Research Group’s September 24 assembly commenced with a presentation of the success of the ‘Community CAFO Dialogue’ read earlier in the thirty day period. People benefits have already been noted on in the Independent-Scout, and the remaining version is out there on the internet at: https://crawford.extension.wisc.edu/documents/2020/09/CAFO-Moratorium-Analyze-Committee-Neighborhood-DIALOGUE-Report-1.pdf
Crawford County UW-Extension Group Development Educator Jessica Jane Spayde, who experienced facilitated the dialogue shared the final results with the examine team.
“I am heading to have to have enable responding to all the fears in this dialogue report from you,” Spayde explained to the other customers of the analyze group. “We’re going to will need the examine team to state its impression on the concerns elevated.”
Review Group chair Don Olson said “if we were to deal with all the challenges lifted in your report, we would be assembly forever.”
Examine Team member, farmer, Janet Widder disagreed with Olson.
“This report really should have long gone to the Land Conservation Committee before the vote on irrespective of whether or not to extend the CAFO Moratorium,” Widder stated. “I would be happy to assist answer to the general public.”
Dairy farmer and analyze team member Kim Moret had this to say about the dialogue:
“The day it was held was negative for farmers mainly because it was sunny out,” Moret claimed. “Farmers are sick of becoming bullied.”
“We just cannot alter the county or state demands pertaining to livestock facility siting,” chairman Olson reported. “And we can’t improve the authorized concerns.”
What legal issues? Perhaps associates of the Analyze Team, Land Conservation Committee or County Board have gained legal counsel that they are not reporting, but are acting on? It’s all a little unclear.
“Roth has significant-powered attorneys, and the county can’t afford a lawsuit,” Moret claimed. “If the Town of Marietta won’t enact zoning, then Roth can do what he likes.”
Janet Widder responded to Kim Moret:
“Kim, your anxiety-mongering at just about every conference, seeking to make us scared of a lawsuit, is aggravating,” Widder said. “We do will need authorized assistance, but the county’s corporate counsel is not existing, nor is lawful counsel on our agenda.”
Spayde questioned Moret and Olson if they had been going to read through the report, or if their thoughts was produced up.
“At the previous Land Conservation Committee conference we voted not to advise extension of the CAFO Moratorium,” Olson said. “It will not be place again on the committee’s agenda for a further vote.”
At their September 16 assembly, the Crawford County Health and fitness Board took up a ‘Health Board Discussion on CAFO Moratorium’ agenda merchandise. County Public Overall health Director Cindy Riniker also sits on the Crawford County CAFO Study Team.
In accordance to the unapproved draft of the meeting minutes, the health and fitness board’s discussion went as follows:
Public Wellbeing supported an extension of the [CAFO] Moratorium owing to hold off of groundwater analyze and conferences due to COVID.
[The] Land Conservation Committee did vote [down recommending an extension].
[The CAFO Study Group] will be providing a report to the [Crawford County] Board in October. Public Overall health will be providing input to that report.
Issue about Community Overall health Committee getting this to the entire County Board. Discussion about this. No motion taken.
Jessica Jane Spayde, CAFO Study Team member, indicated that she ideas to report at the future Crawford County Agriculture and Extension Education and learning Committee assembly as follows:
“I plan to advise the committee that the Local community CAFO Dialogue was among the the quite a few factors that I have completed in two months considering that the committee final achieved,” Spayde reported. “At that time, I will talk to them if they want to reply to the benefits of the dialogue, or take any motion about them.”
The Crawford County Agriculture and Extension Schooling Committee conference will get location on Thursday, Oct. 1, at 10 a.m. or quickly subsequent the Good Committee Assembly. County board supervisors who sit on the committee include things like: Wade Uninteresting (chair), Mary Kuhn, Dave Olson, Don Stirling and Wayne Jerrett.
To be part of the assembly:
• Join by telephone +1 312 626 6799 (Chicago)
• Be a part of Zoom Conference electronically: https://uwmadison.zoom.us/j/95814565686?pwd=OGNRemNzelM0a1AwalZnb05GbDlSUT09
• Assembly ID: 958 1456 5686
• Password: crawford
Soon after listening to Olson’s refusal to think about the results of the dialogue, or to contemplate a re-vote at the future Land Conservation Committee meeting, the Research Group’s awareness turned to how they would produce and approve their report to the Crawford County Board. The report is thanks to the board at their Oct assembly.
The subsequent timeline was agreed on:
• Oct 8: all submissions for report compiled
• October 9: conference of Analyze Group to take into consideration the draft report at 9 a.m.
• October 13: current remaining draft of report to Land Conservation Committee