Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wind Energy Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Des Moines County supervisors debate setbacks, safety and property rights in wind siting draft
Summary
Supervisors reviewed Article 3 of a draft wind‑energy ordinance, debating whether setbacks should be three times turbine height or a minimum distance (1,800 feet), and heard safety examples, cleanup and insurance provisions cited by residents and staff.
Des Moines County supervisors spent an extended public meeting session reviewing Article 3 of a proposed wind energy siting ordinance and heard competing appeals to safety, property rights and wildlife protection.
The draft moves setbacks for nonparticipating occupied dwellings from a fixed 1,800 feet to a proportional standard tied to turbine height; one supervisor proposed keeping the greater of "three times the turbine height or 1,800 feet." "I thought that was a good idea and make it a minimum of 1,800 feet," said the supervisor who introduced that amendment (Committee member S3). The board debated whether a floor is needed to protect residents if developers propose relatively short turbines.
Residents and public commenters pressed the board for more empirical footing. Brad Coates (S6) told supervisors, "We're gonna have a lot of people that are gonna come and ask us how that number was determined," and asked staff to document safety data and field measurements behind the 1,800‑foot figure. Supervisors and commenters repeatedly cited two prior incidents: a Mechanicsville (Cedar County) site where lightning and fire left blades hanging and scattered fiberglass debris, and a February 2024 failure in Osceola County. The board said the draft includes decommissioning language intended to require rapid removal and cleanup when turbines fail.
The board also discussed the tradeoff between landowner rights and public safety. "The landowner's constitutionally protected freedoms to exercise their property rights is not superseded by any conceivable future," one supervisor said, while adding the county is proposing requirements to "ensure public safety and to guarantee indemnification for any damage caused to adjacent properties." That language, board members said, reflects a decision to allow participating landowners to exercise rights while protecting neighbors through setback and indemnity rules.
Other technical topics raised during the discussion included maximum turbine height used for setback calculations (a staff presenter suggested 650 feet as a common planning number), whether undergrounding of collection lines should be required "to the maximum extent feasible," noise limits (50 A‑weighted decibels at occupied dwellings), and a shadow‑flicker cap that would limit nonparticipating dwellings to no more than 30 hours per year.
The board did not adopt a final text at the meeting. Staff were asked to circulate additional documentation — including US Fish & Wildlife and Iowa DNR guidance, conservation‑board maps, and technical materials on fire suppression and blade sensors — and the board said it would revisit setbacks and wildlife provisions after reviewing those materials.
What happens next: staff will send the board the conservation‑board material and technical attachments; supervisors will consider the conservation recommendations and any specific amendments at a future meeting. No formal vote on Article 3 occurred during this session.
