Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Waste Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Animal waste ordinance work group reports consensus on need for stronger nutrient management, continued data review
Summary
A stakeholder work group formed to study proposed animal-waste ordinance changes reported broad agreement on expanding nutrient-management adoption and exploring buffers and other alternatives; members asked for more data before finalizing recommendations.
County planning staff and work-group members updated the Environmental Resource Committee on two April meetings of a 25‑member animal waste ordinance work group convened to review proposed amendments intended to reduce phosphorus runoff, particularly to the Big Eau Pleine (Big O'Plain) reservoir and other water bodies.
Staff said the work group represents a cross-section of operators and stakeholders—farmers with small and large operations, conservation staff and other agricultural professionals—and that the meetings focused heavily on available water-quality data, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) information, and monitoring data from the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company (WVIC) and the DNR.
Key takeaways
- Unanimous support among work-group participants for stronger efforts to implement nutrient-management planning across the county: staff reported Marathon County already has nutrient management plans covering more than 60% of cropland acres, roughly double the state county average, but that participants agreed more uptake is needed.
- Continued review of data before drafting binding requirements: several members asked for additional data review before the group moves from alternatives to final recommendations. Work-group meetings focused on the DNR TMDL data, WVIC monitoring and county monitoring for total phosphorus.
- Alternatives under consideration include: (a) buffer or riparian-edge approaches on high-risk acres, (b) tightening the phosphorus index threshold used in nutrient-management planning (moving below the state reference of ~6 lb P/acre/year to lower targets such as 3–4), (c) encouraging or requiring winter ground-cover practices (cover crops, residue retention or leaving hay stands) to reduce winter-applied manure runoff, and (d) revising thresholds tied to animal-unit numbers that would trigger winter-spreading limits or other restrictions.
Staff said the work group was constructive and respectful despite differing views and that the next steps include further technical data review, continued stakeholder meetings and potential drafting of ordinance alternatives that balance runoff reduction with practical farming operations. No ordinance decision was reached at the ERC meeting; the committee received the update and asked staff to continue facilitating the work group.
