By Tommy Burrell November 8, 2023- "The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee is revising the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The existing 2013 Plan includes a Public Participation Goal: “[to] inform, consult and involve the public and the communities served during each phase of the planning process.”
At the committee’s October 18th, meeting, I offered a brief “public comment.” In light of the public participation goal, I suggested that the Chapter 2 (“Natural Resources”) discussion of metallic mining would be the perfect place to include the Lynne Mine Referendum — as an indication of public opinion.
See November 2018 Referendum coverage Local Groups (Once Again) Stand Up to Mining Threats - River Alliance of WI (wisconsinrivers.org)
Scott Holewinski, chairmen of the committee and of the Board of Supervisors, did not think that would be appropriate because future supervisors might think that they were bound by it. Mike Timmons, Supervisor, responded that the referendum could be included with sufficient detail.
Sam Wessel, Senior Planner at the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, later commented that the Lynne referendum information could be inserted in Chapter Two.
Each chapter of the Plan ends with “Goals, Objectives, and Policies.” Under the existing Plan, Ch 2 (2013), the first Goal is to improve and enhance natural features such as shorelands. The first Policy is to “Conserve and enhance shoreland areas by minimizing impacts from land-disturbing activities.” Holewinski said, “Strike that.” It was not clear whether he meant the policy, the goal or both. He and Mike Roach, Supervisor, agreed that the existing wording could cause a loss of property owner control and value.
Goal 2 of the existing plan is to “Conserve and enhance large tract woodlands and County Forests.” The committee agreed to strike or modify this goal. As written, they feel that it could be used in the future to stop development. Holewinski stated that county forests are already protected. He believes that the reason to have Managed Forest Lands is to save the land for future development. Holewinski opined that the committee needed time to consider all the goals and discuss them further at a later meeting. He commented, “These goals sound like they came out of a magazine.”
Oneida County 2013 Comprehensive Plan link- Microsoft Word - OC Element 1April 2013 (oneida.wi.us)
As you can see, our County Board Supervisors are revamping the Comprehensive Plan to ensure and facilitate future development. The existing plan states that the County public participation goal includes informing, consulting and involving us. However, you feel about these issues, now is the time to let our supervisors and the public know your views.
OCCWA Helpful Reference*
Refer to Wikipedia Comprehensive Plan definition to better understand it's importance.
"Comprehensive planning is an ordered process that determines community goals and aspirations in terms of community development. The end product is called a comprehensive plan, also known as a general plan, or master plan. This resulting document expresses and regulates public policies on transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing. Comprehensive plans typically encompass large geographical areas, a broad range of topics, and cover a long-term time horizon. The term comprehensive plan is most often used by urban planners in the United States.
Each city and county adopts and updates their plan to guide the growth and land development of their community, for both the current period and the long term. This "serious document" is then the foundation for establishing goals, purposes, zoning and activities allowed on each land parcel to provide compatibility and continuity to the entire region as well as each individual neighborhood. It has been one of the most important instruments in city and regional planning since the early twentieth century."
By Kathleen Cooper June 16, 2023- The latest funding bill proposed by the Wisconsin legislature seems to be the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for local governments. The latest funding bill proposed by the Wisconsin legislature seems to be the proverbial “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for local governments.
While it raises funding for most municipalities in Wisconsin by 15%, (but only 10% in Democratically controlled Milwaukee, stating that Milwaukee, unlike other cities, would be able to increase sales taxes themselves) there are some alarming proposals included.
This bill would ban local advisory referenda questions on everything except for certain projects that would be funded with property tax money. It would also mandate that local governments approve projects under the state’s land stewardship program that are north of US Highway 8, which runs across the northernmost quarter of the state. Removing the ability of local governments to establish rules pertaining to the use of quarries is also included in this proposal.
The ban on referenda would effectively silence the voices of the people of the State of Wisconsin and leave the fate of widely unpopular programs and proposals to the state and county governments. While this sounds reasonable, many times our own governments, whether state or local, do not vote in favor of what the majority of their constituents want, as evidenced by the recent votes concerning the Pelican River Forest by the Joint Finance Committee and the Oneida County Board. In spite of overwhelming public support, both governing bodies voted against the acquisition of conservation easements in the PRF.
This is reminiscent of 2018, when the Oneida County Board was veering toward allowing a mining company to begin drilling core samples in wetlands adjacent to the Willow Flowage in the Town of Lynne. The public outcry prompted the county board to hold a non-binding referendum on the Lynne mine, which resulted in an overwhelming bipartisan rejection of mining, specifically for the Lynne mine, but also generally for Oneida County as a whole. Without the right to hold this referendum, Oneida County may have had to allow a mine in this priceless habitat and these pristine waters.
Now our state legislators are proposing to remove the last hope of the public of having any opportunity to go on record regarding legislation. Since our own representatives have not voted in favor of popular opinion many times in the past and have in fact publicly stated that they do not “vote the way their constituents want,” these referenda are vital. These referenda allow the people to have a voice. Why do our legislators see that as a problem so terrible that they have to write a law against it? The referenda are non-binding, after all.
If this proposal passes, the next step will be, against the will of the people of Oneida County and northern Wisconsin, the establishment of a sulfide mining district that includes all of northern Wisconsin. In spite of what the mining companies say, this will be devastating for our lakes, rivers, and forest habitat. Please speak out to our legislators and tell them that the people of Oneida County and northern Wisconsin want to have a voice and want to continue to be heard.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage of proposed bill here GOP releases bill to increase money for Wisconsin local governments
Direct quote from the June 16th, Felzkowski Flyer emailing on banning advisory referenda.
"Preventing local governments from using hot-button political advisory referendums, on issues they have no direct control over, to increase partisan voter turnout."
Please note the assertion "issues they have no direct control over
Update July 17 2023- From a recent Wisconsin Examiner article, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) along with Wisconsin Dairy Alliance (WDA) have joined in a lawsuit to exempt Factory Farms from WDNR permit requirements. One more reason why Oneida County should reconsider their postponed Manure Storage Ordinance. CAFO owners suing to end DNR permits have spilled more than 26,000 gallons of manure - Wisconsin Examiner
By Kathleen Cooper July 13, 2023- The waters and ecosystems of northern Wisconsin face yet another environmental threat - besides PFAS, sulfide mining, and local leaders who favor corporate interests instead of residents. This is the threat of CAFO’s being established in our Northwoods.
CAFO stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and refers to facilities that house 1000 or more “animal units”. These facilities can include meat, dairy, or egg operations where animals are kept and raised in confinement. Instead of grazing or eating in pastures, in fields, or on rangelands, animals are confined in small spaces and fed until they are ready for slaughter.
These CAFO’s pose many problems for the surrounding environment. They affect air quality, groundwater and surface water quality, land use, quantity and quality of nearby drinking water wells, damage to local roads from heavy truck traffic, and increased odors and noise. In other words, they stink and cause contamination to our precious, pristine environment because of the huge amounts of manure produced daily, which has to be spread on fields, causing runoff into our lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. In Wisconsin, 90% of all groundwater pollution comes from fertilizer and manure application.
Our neighbors in Polk County in northwestern Wisconsin are facing this threat now. When Cumberland LLC proposed establishing a swine operation that would house up to 26,350 pigs, small municipalities in the area such as Laketown passed ordinances to regulate how the CAFO’s can operate. Laketown’s rules applied to operations with 700 or more “animal units,” and required applicants to submit plans for preventing infectious diseases, air pollution and odor, managing waste, and handling dead animals, as well as mandating traffic and property value impact studies, a plan for clean-ups, and permit fees. This ordinance did not affect existing livestock facilities, unless they changed owners.
However, Wisconsin’s “right to farm” and livestock facility laws rebuff local control over CAFO’s, because regulating livestock operations, but not banning them or restricting their locations, could enable communities to sidestep the state laws, possibly affecting the state’s $104.8 billion agricultural industry. Big farming and dairy interests are threatening to sue the small towns in Polk County, including Laketown and Bone Lake. Usually when this happens the small towns cave to the power and money of the big farming interests, but so far the tiny municipalities in Polk County have stood their ground.
Last year, a manure storage ordinance that could have provided the residents of Oneida County with a buffer to the establishment of a CAFO here by powerful business and farming interests was rejected by our County Board. One farmer, who’s operation was not affected by the regulations proposed, objected. One farmer. Without some sort of regulatory safety net, Oneida County is an easy target for these CAFO’s, with all their stink and pollution. If you have ever driven past a huge swine operation and taken a whiff, you know what this entails.
Here is an excellent article from Barn Raising Media Regulating CAFOs Hits Snag in Wisconsin - Barn Raiser (barnraisingmedia.com)
Grist article covering town vs CAFO legal battle A Wisconsin town tried to stop factory farm pollution. Then got sued. | Grist
Link to Oneida County Land and Water January 2022 update Manure Storage - Oneida County Land and Water Conservation (oclw.org)
By Eric Rempala January 16, 2023- Yes, yes, what next? As Oneida County reels from a recent PFAS discovery a WXPR piece reveals rising levels of salt in local lakes. What is encouraging is that levels are not so high yet to cause declines in macroinvertebrates and zooplankton which are the bottom of the food chain supporting fish populations.
A recent WXPR article by Katie Thoreson covers this issue in more detail. Rising chloride levels in Lake Julia spur action by Lake Association members to reduce salt use in the area | WXPR
I would like to commend both Sue and Bob Thome as well as the Lake Julia Lake Association for their efforts to bring this issue to the forefront. It is these types of actions from local residents that help protect our water. Let's hope going forward a proactive and effective approach will be implemented.
By 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.
By Kathleen Cooper December 13, 2023- It’s been a good week for clean water in Oneida County! The Oneida County Conservation Committee has drafted letters to the two committees responsible for hearing the wake boating bill drafted by Senator Mary Felzkowski and State Representative Rob Swearingen (the Assembly and Senate Committees). These letters urge our state legislators to revise the proposed bill to limit wake boating no closer than 500 ft from shore (the original bill allowed wake boating 200 ft from shore), in water depth no less than 30 ft (there are no depth requirements in the original bill), to address the issue of aquatic invasive species transport in ballast water (the original bill does not address this issue), and to maintain local control over this issue (the original bill removes all local control of this issue). If adopted, the limits expressed in the letter would be the most aggressive limits on wake boating in the nation, limits which are much more aligned with independent research. Independent research indicates that wake boating should only be allowed on lakes 1500 acres or larger, at least 600-700 feet from shore, in depths of at least 20-30 ft, and that ballast tanks should be thoroughly cleaned and inspected after use to prevent the spread of invasive species from lake to lake.
The members of the Conservation Committee deserve our recognition for this action that will help to keep our lake environments safer and protect lake habitat for generations to come. The committee members are Jim Winkler (chair), Robb Jensen (vice chair), Linnaea Newman, Tommy Ryden, and Collette Sorgel. If you have time, please email them for supporting lake habitat and the science behind preserving it.
In other developments, the Oneida County Board of Health unanimously passed a resolution on December 12 asking for the testing of the sludge that is being spread on local fields for PFAS, as well as the testing of private wells within a two-mile radius of these spreading sites for PFAS, to be paid for by the DNR and/or the state. This resolution will now go before the Oneida County Board in January. Many thanks to Linda Conlon, the director of the Oneida County Health Department, and to the members of the Board of Health Committee: Tom Kelly (chairman), Debbie Condado, Mike Roach, Billy Fried, and special thanks to Scott Holewinski for his support. Please contact your county board supervisors to let them know how you feel about this important resolution.
In these times of division, our legislators have come together, recognized the importance of these issues for our lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, and have taken these important steps to preserve our water. They deserve our thanks and support on these Clean Water issues.
Oneida County Conservation Committe email addresses.
jwinkler@co.oneida.wi.us
rjensen@oneidacountywi.gov
lnewman@oneidacountywi.gov
tryden@oneidacountywi.gov
csorgel@oneidacountywi.gov
Wisconsin's Waters Belong to Everyone
Wisconsin lakes and rivers are public resources, owned in common by all Wisconsin citizens under the state's Public Trust Doctrine. Based on the state constitution, this doctrine has been further defined by case law and statute. It declares that all navigable waters are "common highways and forever free", and held in trust by the Department of Natural Resources.
Assures Public Rights in Waters
Wisconsin citizens have pursued legal and legislative action to clarify or change how this body of law is interpreted and implemented. Go to the Wisconsin Department of Resources website to watch videos on how individual Wisconsinites have benefited from these efforts.
Oneida County Clean Waters Action
Copyright © 2024 Oneida County Clean Waters Action - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy