Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County discusses draft changes to animal waste ordinance: 35-foot buffers, winter restrictions and phased implementation
Summary
County conservation staff reviewed proposed updates to Chapter 11.2 that would require 35-foot buffers adjacent to streams, impose seasonal limits on winter spreading for mid/large farms, establish a permit for winter spreading for operators without nutrient management plans and contemplate delayed implementation to allow transition.
Marathon County conservation staff and committee members reviewed proposed edits to the county's animal waste ordinance (draft Chapter 11.2) at the Oct. 14 Environmental Resources Committee meeting, covering proposed stream buffers, winter-spreading restrictions, verification procedures and phased implementation timelines.
Staff emphasized the draft's intent to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff into impaired streams. The proposed buffer rule in the draft would require a 35-foot vegetative buffer where a stream runs through a property. Staff explained the county ordinance is mandatory where adopted; the buffer requirement would apply irrespective of farm size if a stream is present.
The draft also includes a seasonal restriction on spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered ground for medium and large farms during a 60-day window in February and March. Staff said small farms (under 300 animal units) would not be subject to the same winter restriction and that concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) remain regulated under NR 243 and related state rules.
Verification of “frozen ground” is handled primarily by operators' judgment, staff said; Conservation, Planning & Zoning (CPZ) staff would perform field verification (for example by using a soil probe) only after a complaint or observed runoff event. The committee discussed real-world uncertainty about field conditions and whether some parcels in a single farm could freeze while others do not.
Staff described a proposed administrative pathway for operators who lack a nutrient management plan: a winter-spreading permit (the staff suggestion was a $200 permit valid for four years, equivalent to $50 per year) available to landowners who meet CPZ requirements. Staff said farmers with an approved nutrient management plan would not need the permit; they estimated about 65% of local farmers already have nutrient management plans.
Multiple supervisors and staff noted the county intends a delayed or phased implementation if the ordinance proceeds. Staff said the committee and farmers' work group anticipated an implementation window allowing one to three years (or staged dates for different provisions) to give operators and the department time for outreach, education and grant-seeking for longer-term adaptations such as additional manure storage.
Why it matters: The revisions are intended to reduce manure-related runoff and improve surface and groundwater quality; they carry operational impacts for farms that do not already follow the highlighted conservation practices. Committee members pressed staff on verification, enforcement and transition timelines. No formal ordinance vote occurred at the Oct. 14 meeting; staff said further public outreach and a farmer work group process preceded any county board consideration.
The committee asked staff to return with suggested implementation dates, fee details and outreach plans before any ordinance was forwarded to HR/Finance or the full county board.
