Conservation staff propose countywide ban on liquid/slurry winter manure spreading in Feb–Mar, with permits and a 3–5 year rollout

Conservation Planning and Zoning staff told the Environmental Resources Committee on Jan. 7 they are proposing a countywide approach to reduce winter manure spreading — a measure staff say would sharply cut phosphorus loads to surface waters.

Kirsty and Matt of the county’s conservation staff laid out a five-category framework: (1) CAFOs (facilities above 1,000 animal units) already have strict restrictions, (2) county-permitted livestock-siting farms (typically 500–999 animal units), (3) farms that received DNR cost-share for manure storage or had notices of discharge, (4) farms that already have nutrient management plans, and (5) farms without nutrient management plans. For many farms that do not fall under state-mandated planning, staff proposed a winter-spreading permit requirement and a ban on liquid and slurry manure applications during February and March.

Staff presented county agriculture figures: 348 dairy farms (about 173 reported having manure storage and roughly 175 without long-term storage), 14 CAFOs, 18 livestock-siting farms, approximately 65,000 dairy cows and 145,000 total cattle. Staff said about 40% of farms in the county lack nutrient management plans and that February–March are the highest-risk months for runoff; they argued that targeted restrictions during that period would yield the greatest phosphorus reductions.

Under the staff proposal, county-permitted livestock-siting farms would be prohibited from applying liquid or slurry manure on frozen or snow-covered ground, with emergency applications allowed only after staff review and written justification. Farms without nutrient management plans would need a winter-spreading permit (staff suggested a four-year permit) and would submit field information annually; farms with nutrient-management plans would follow their existing plans and not require the additional permit.

Staff recommended countywide implementation rather than limiting rules by watershed, saying a countywide approach is easier for administration and avoids the risk that restrictions push winter spreading into otherwise healthy waters. They suggested a delayed implementation period of three to five years to give farms time to secure storage, rent storage capacity, or obtain grant funding; staff also discussed possible small cost-share incentives during the transition.

Committee members raised questions about enforcement, potential fines (described as a last resort under stepped enforcement), cost and feasibility of adding winter storage (estimates cited in discussion ranged widely), and staff capacity to implement and assist farms. Several supervisors asked staff to engage Farm Bureau, Farmers Union and producer-led groups (EPIC), and return with more detailed data and outreach results. The chair directed staff to perform stakeholder engagement and bring revised draft language back to ERC for further consideration.

What happens next: staff will begin outreach with farm groups, refine data on which operations would need assistance, consider cost-share options, and return to ERC with a draft ordinance and implementation timeline for further review.