Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Manure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County committee reopens debate on manure agreements and Chapter 11 after public complaints about hauling and consent
Summary
Public commenters and several supervisors pressed the Community Development Committee to require clearer documentation showing where manure will be applied after reports that some landowners were listed on nutrient-management plans without consent; the committee debated a draft Chapter 11 amendment and tied 2–2 on scheduling a public hearing.
Public comment at a Saint Croix County Community Development Committee meeting focused on manure application and landowner agreements, prompting renewed discussion about a proposed amendment to Chapter 11 of the county code.
"Landowners have the right to know where, when, and how, and by whom is applying manure on their land," said Virginia Durath of Emerald Township, urging the committee to restore earlier language that would require signed landowner agreements. John Gostovich of Hudson framed the issue as one of property rights, saying, "This is purely a property rights issue" and that landowners should receive notice and timing information before manure is spread on their fields.
Supervisor Van Summerin and others raised a published report they said showed a Pierce County dairy planning a major expansion and identified land listed on a nutrient-management plan for manure spreading. Van Summerin cited figures from the report — including a claim about a 6,500-cow expansion and an estimated 80,000,000 gallons of manure — and urged the committee to reconsider the ordinance at the full board level to ensure the county knows where manure is applied.
Staff described a pragmatic compromise for documenting spreading: a simple, internal spreadsheet containing parcel numbers, property-owner names, acres and a signed line indicating consent to allow a particular producer to apply manure to the parcel. Staff said such a ledger could be kept outside SnapPlus or similar systems to address producer concerns about proprietary information, but it would be subject to open-records rules if the county receives it.
Supervisors split on next steps. A motion to schedule a public hearing next month on the Chapter 11 amendment resulted in a 2–2 tie in a roll-call vote and therefore failed; the committee directed staff to place the item on a future agenda and to prepare a draft and public-hearing materials if requested. Staff also agreed to produce a cost/impact matrix for proposed water-quality measures and to invite a septic-experts panel to the next discussion.
The committee distinguished between (a) discussion and outreach — including staff proposals for education and targeted monitoring — and (b) formal action: no ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. The item remains before the committee for further consideration and possible public hearing.
