Des Moines County Board of Supervisors members convened a work session June 7, 2025, to review Article 3 of a proposed ordinance setting design and siting standards for large wind-energy systems, including setbacks, lighting, fire suppression, noise limits and wildlife protections.

The session matters because the rules would change where developers can place turbines in the county, affect property rights, public-safety protections and federally protected wildlife habitat including species documented in Des Moines County.

Planning staff opened the discussion by summarizing Article 3 and the changes since the county’s 2023 ordinance. “So we’re here to talk about Article 3, wind energy system design and design standards,” said Jared, county planning staff, describing the sections that cover setbacks, height, lighting, operations and maintenance requirements and other technical standards. The draft would replace several fixed distances with setback formulas tied to turbine height and would add or clarify requirements for fire suppression, aircraft-detection lighting and operations-and-maintenance documentation.

The centerpiece of debate was the proposed setback for nonparticipating occupied dwellings. The draft ties setbacks to turbine height; supervisors discussed a formula of “three times the turbine height or the greater of three times the turbine height or 1,800 feet.” Supervisor Tom Rooker said the measure reflects safety concerns the board gathered from other counties and past failures: “Our intention…was to draft an ordinance to narrow the property rights of participating land owners in order to ensure public safety and to guarantee indemnification for any damage caused to adjacent properties,” Rooker said, citing past turbine failures and cleanup difficulties.

Residents and board members repeatedly referenced incidents in other Iowa counties, where turbine components or blade fragments spread debris outward. One resident said debris reached roughly 1,500 feet in a Mechanicsville-area event; supervisors discussed measurements taken by Osceola County crews after a 2024 failure. Those examples shaped support for setback formulas linked to turbine height rather than a single fixed distance.

The county conservation staff and board pressed for additional wildlife protections. Chris Lee, Conservation Director, told supervisors that local research shows the county hosts a rich assemblage of bat species and other sensitive wildlife. “Des Moines County conservation’s own research has determined a lot of areas including our own parks such as Big Hollow. We have all nine species of bats known to Iowa and the three species that are on the federally endangered list,” Lee said, identifying Indiana bat, northern long‑eared bat and tricolored bat among species recorded locally. Conservation board members recommended science-based buffers: a three‑mile radius around documented properties with endangered bats, a five‑mile buffer for active bald‑eagle nest areas and a quarter‑mile buffer along forested riparian corridors, citing US Fish and Wildlife Service and Iowa DNR guidance.

Technical and operational requirements discussed by staff and commenters included:
- A 50 A‑weighted decibel (dBA) maximum at occupied dwellings (not applicable during a severe storm or electrical outage, per the draft text).
- Shadow‑flicker limits: no occupied dwelling on a nonparticipating property should experience more than 30 hours per year of shadow flicker, with an operations plan and mitigation required in permit materials.
- Requirements that electric collection lines be placed underground “to the maximum extent feasible,” with some participants urging the county to require undergrounding for wind projects without exceptions.
- Mandatory operations and maintenance plans showing how turbines will address ice throw, blade‑ice detection or mitigation, lightning protection and fire suppression. Supervisors added language requiring on‑site fire suppression capable of detecting and extinguishing fires and noted operations staff must be trained for safe interaction with suppression systems.
- Aircraft‑detection lighting systems, subject to FAA approval, where feasible, to minimize nighttime lighting while meeting aviation safety rules. Staff said the county could not override FAA decisions but could require detection lighting where FAA permits.
- A performance test for technologies deemed “novel or experimental”: the draft requires turbine models and major components to have been used operationally for at least five years on at least two projects of 25 MW or greater within roughly 250 miles, and to comply with IEC standards.

Public commenters pressed for clearer enforcement and mitigation language. “What is the cure?” asked a resident concerned about shadow flicker and noise, noting that enforcement and the burden of proof for complaints must be clear. Planning staff pointed to an expanded complaints and enforcement chapter in the draft that would require an administrator to log complaints, give operators the chance to respond and require mitigation plans if a violation is found; supervisors asked staff to circulate comparable complaint‑resolution language from neighboring ordinances for review.

Conservation board members and other speakers urged the supervisors to factor local, on‑the‑ground research into final setback decisions and to require developers to submit detailed wildlife and communications studies (including NTIA or similar reviews) as part of permit applications. Several residents also asked the county to ensure developers demonstrate that proposed turbine heights would not create unacceptable electromagnetic or radar interference with local communications or regional weather radar.

No formal vote on Article 3 occurred at the June 7 work session. Supervisors asked staff to distribute the conservation board’s memo and related maps, to assemble documentation on lightning‑and‑fire suppression and blade‑safety technology, and to provide examples of complaint‑resolution language from other counties. Rooker and other supervisors said additional public work sessions and follow‑up would be scheduled before any ordinance adoption.

The county faces competing priorities in the weeks ahead: balancing landowner property rights and signed leases with safety, wildlife protections and the practicalities of enforcement. The board did not adopt final setbacks or technical standards at this meeting and will return to the topic after receiving the conservation board’s materials and the additional technical documentation requested.

Next steps: staff will circulate the conservation board memo and supporting maps to the supervisors, provide further information on lighting, detection and suppression technologies, and present model complaint‑resolution language and examples of how other counties have implemented undergrounding and setback formulas. The supervisors signaled the matter will return to a future meeting for additional public input before any ordinance vote.