Dunn County panel presses planners for clearer priorities, groundwater protections in comprehensive plan review

Dunn County’s Planning, Resource and Development Committee spent much of its Dec. 3 meeting pressing staff and the Regional Planning Commission to make the countywide comprehensive plan easier to use and to add clearer safeguards for groundwater.

Susan Badke of the Regional Planning Commission told the committee the update builds on the 2009 plan (revised 2016) and reported outreach results: 538 respondents to the general public survey and 710 responses to the mailed farmland owner survey. She described upcoming and completed focus groups and said draft chapters on transportation and economic development are being refined.

Public commenter Sarah Witter of Menominee urged the committee to fold the county’s separate sustainability plan into the comprehensive plan and to “incorporate those items into the comprehensive plan” so sustainability goals are active and measurable, rather than sitting in a separate document.

Committee members repeatedly raised two central concerns: first, the draft contains many objectives and policies but lacks prioritization and measurable follow‑through; second, the plan needs explicit language to address groundwater and other natural‑resource constraints when reviewing large industrial or high‑water‑use projects such as data centers.

Members described the draft objectives as a useful inventory but not a practical roadmap. One supervisor urged an implementation chapter that pulls all actionable items into a table with a lead party and timeline so progress can be monitored. In response, Badke said that implementation detail commonly appears in a plan’s implementation chapter and proposed options such as short‑, medium‑ and long‑term actions and identifying the “key lead” for each item.

On transportation, Badke presented a draft goal to maintain a safe, fiscally responsible multimodal system and four supporting objectives (infrastructure maintenance, mobility and equitable access, multimodal connections, and safety). A board member asked why passenger rail did not appear more prominently; Badke pointed to draft language recommending continued coordination with regional partners including the West Central Wisconsin Rail Coalition to explore intercity bus, passenger rail and trail connections.

Funding and tools to manage road impacts also drew attention. Members asked how the county can ensure major projects that increase heavy truck traffic or otherwise strain roads take responsibility for mitigation; staff proposed including policy language to consider transportation impacts during development review and strategies such as advocacy for state/federal aid, pursuing grants, cost‑sharing agreements and a county technical assistance program to help villages and towns identify and apply for funding.

Water was a recurring theme. Multiple members recommended adding groundwater and wellhead protection to economic development and siting policies. A supervisor cited past cases—like frac‑sand mining—where the county used overlay zones and cost‑sharing to address infrastructure impacts, and another member proposed inviting outside experts to brief the committee about operation ordinances and other local tools.

Next steps: staff said they will revisit prioritization and implementation formatting and invited the committee and public to a Water & Natural Resources focus group scheduled for Dec. 16 (two sessions) to refine natural‑resource recommendations.

No formal board action was taken on the draft chapters during the meeting; staff will revise materials and return with updated language and an implementation approach.