Des Moines County supervisors debate key definitions, enforcement in renewable‑energy siting ordinance workshop

Des Moines County supervisors spent the bulk of their Sept. 30 meeting in a workshop reviewing a revised renewable‑energy siting ordinance, focusing on definitional clarity and how the county would enforce rules during a facility’s operational lifespan.

Staff presented a chapter‑by‑chapter review and recommended several additions and edits adopted from neighboring counties’ ordinances. The proposal explicitly distinguishes commercial from personal systems (for solar, a 25‑megawatt threshold; for wind, 1 megawatt or more or multiple large turbines) and expands definitions to cover standalone battery energy systems and agrivoltaic installations.

Several board members questioned the chosen thresholds. One supervisor noted that a 25‑megawatt solar project requires hundreds of acres and tens of thousands of panels and asked staff to research whether 25 MW, 10–15 MW or a lower threshold would better match local projects. Staff agreed to collect data on typical project sizes and acreage and to return with options.

The meeting featured detailed debate about several high‑impact technical terms:

• Ice throw: Board members worried that a legally precise definition requiring distance calculations would force the county to hire experts in every enforcement case. After discussion, the board moved toward a concise definition limited to "the shedding of ice from a wind turbine blade," noting that liability for anything falling from a blade would remain with the developer.

• Shadow flicker: The board discussed competing formulations. Staff and several members favored a simple, measurable definition—"the changing of light caused by sunlight through rotating blades"—to reduce the need for expert testimony to prove nuisance claims in court.

• Cemeteries and pioneer burial sites: Staff proposed defining 'cemetery' as assessor‑recognized, tax‑exempt burial ground and allowing designation by a Pioneer Cemetery list following public notice. Members expressed concern about imposing regulatory burdens on small volunteer cemetery boards and suggested relying on existing county lists rather than creating new adjudicatory duties for volunteers.

• Decommissioning and partial decommissioning: The draft was revised to clarify that decommissioning could apply to an entire facility or to a portion (a single turbine or 'implement') that needed removal, with restoration to pre‑installation condition specified.

• MET towers and permitting: Staff recommended a simplified permit process for temporary meteorological towers, with minimum safety standards and requirements that towers be removed when no longer used. Several members noted previous pre‑permit MET towers and emphasized the need for the county to track removal.

• Enforcement and administration: The board debated who would carry out technical inspections and enforce ongoing compliance. Staff proposed an 'administrator' role to coordinate, with the option to subcontract technical review or enforcement to public‑health environmental staff (Russ) or Southeast Regional Planning and to use third‑party consultants for specialized inspections. Board members supported including a 24‑hour emergency contact for operators and noted dispatch/911 protocols for immediate hazards.

The workshop did not adopt a final ordinance; staff will revise language on habitual violations, occupied‑dwelling definitions, conservation area exclusions and thresholds for commercial classification and return with edits and supporting research. Members also asked staff to draft potential language addressing developer liability for increased crop‑dusting costs in adjacent nonparticipating farmland for future consideration.

The workshop closed with staff and supervisors agreeing to continue refining the ordinance in future sessions.