Des Moines County supervisors press draft wind/solar ordinance on decommissioning, soil restoration and emergency response

Des Moines County supervisors and staff spent most of a July 8 work session poring over a draft ordinance that would regulate siting, construction, operation and decommissioning of commercial wind, solar and battery projects in the county.

The meeting centered on decommissioning language: how much underground structure must be removed, how to verify that farmland is restored to its prior productivity, what financial guarantees and insurance the developer must carry, and how quickly damaged or hazardous turbines must be brought down and removed.

Why it matters: The county is writing rules that would apply across multiple proposed projects and persist through the projects’ operating life and end of life. Supervisors said the ordinance must both protect county roads, farmland and neighbors and be defensible if challenged in court.

Board and staff described the draft as a hybrid of the county’s existing language and provisions pulled from a Lee County ordinance. New sections added by staff include wildlife monitoring and mitigation, emergency response, an expanded decommissioning/abandonment chapter and enforcement during the project lifespan.

Removal standard and waivers County staff and supervisors debated how much concrete and underground infrastructure developers must remove during decommissioning. Some supervisors argued the ordinance should require removal “to bedrock” or to “remove it all” as a presumptive standard, with a formal waiver process allowing the owner or landowner to request a lesser removal where deeper removal would cause undue harm. Others noted that in many places bedrock is far beneath the surface and forcing full removal could do more surface damage than leaving deep pilings in place.

Recording of waivers on title Several supervisors said any waiver that leaves material in place should be recorded on the property title so future purchasers know an underground structure remains. Staff suggested the waiver could be recorded as an encumbrance or similar instrument tied to the parcel.

Soil restoration: use CSR as a baseline County staff proposed using the county’s Corn Suitability Rating (CSR) as a measurable baseline to document and verify soil restoration after decommissioning. Supervisors asked that project permit applications include the CSR at each proposed turbine coordinate so the county can compare pre‑development and post‑decommissioning conditions rather than rely on an undefined “return to prior condition” standard.

Timelines, roads and discretion The draft includes a 365‑day standard for completing decommissioning after work begins. County engineers urged flexibility: heavy hauling is seasonal, and soft spring or fall conditions can make roads impassable. The county engineer asked the board to give the engineer discretion to pause construction or decommissioning activity if needed to protect roads and public services; other supervisors said the board should retain final approval over pauses to strengthen the county’s legal position.

Damaged turbines, hazardous equipment and timelines Staff proposed separate, shorter timelines for turbines damaged by storms or other emergencies. Several supervisors pushed for an expedited schedule for hazardous or visibly damaged units — one proposal discussed was a 30‑day target to take a damaged tower to the ground and remove it, with a short notice period to start work. The draft currently contains a 90‑day “commence removal” threshold and a 365‑day full‑restoration deadline; supervisors asked staff to tighten those time frames for imminent risks and to consider enforceable penalties. County staff noted Iowa law caps certain local penalties and that the draft presently includes a civil penalty cap of $1,000 per day for ordinance violations.

Enforcement, forfeiture and abandonment Staff proposed language that would treat three ordinance violations within five years as grounds to declare the facility abandoned and require decommissioning; supervisors discussed whether a single serious violation (for example a prolonged hazardous condition) should also trigger mandatory decommissioning. Legal staff noted that the county’s most effective enforcement tool is the permit and financial surety tied to it.

Financial security and insurance The draft calls for a developer‑provided financial guarantee to cover decommissioning costs. Supervisors and staff discussed acceptable forms of security (surety bond favored by staff for its independent underwriting, escrow or letter of credit considered less preferred) and a security sized to cover the decommissioning cost estimate plus a contingency. Staff recalled prior drafts using multiples of the estimate; supervisors asked for a specific percentage (discussion favored 125–150 percent rather than an outsized multiple). The board also directed staff to draft explicit insurance requirements: liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage, certificate of insurance delivered to the county, and a contractual obligation that the developer notify the county if coverage lapses. Staff will research typical liability amounts from comparable projects and recent local cases; meeting comments referenced an instance in Mechanicsville where a landowner rejected a developer offer of $230,000.

Road‑use agreement and construction phase protections Supervisors asked that road‑use and hauling conditions mirror decommissioning protections: the county should be able to pause work during unacceptable road conditions and require contractors to stabilize surfaces at their cost. Staff said those protections are typically set in a road‑use agreement attached to the permit, and the ordinance should cross‑reference that agreement and make clear the county can require corrective work at developer expense.

Emergency response and invited agencies Board members asked that the next workshop include regional emergency responders — fire chiefs, emergency management and public health — to review emergency response language, hazardous‑material procedures and mitigation for damaged structures. Staff will invite those responders to the next session.

Public comments and wildlife concerns A resident who identified migration counts and provided a folder of daily bird‑migration data told supervisors that large numbers of birds pass through Des Moines County at altitudes the proposed turbines would occupy and urged more stringent wildlife mitigation. The speaker also discussed a recent federal executive action limiting which wind and solar projects qualify for federal tax credits; the speaker provided a printed copy to supervisors. The resident said in part, “I’m giving you all of it… it gives you every day at their altitude and how many came through,” and asked the county to plan mitigation with migration timing in mind.

Next steps Supervisors asked staff to revise the decommissioning chapter, clarify timelines for hazardous removal, define the waiver and recording process, identify a specific contingency percentage for financial security, and draft precise insurance and road‑use language. The board scheduled further workshops to continue the ordinance review and asked staff to invite emergency response and conservation officials to the next meeting.

Ending: The work session continued without formal votes on the ordinance text; staff will return a revised draft with the changes discussed and recommended language for the board’s next workshop.