Des Moines County continues ordinance work session on wind, solar and battery storage; residents press for clearer draft and stronger protections

The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors spent much of its Sept. 9 work session reviewing revisions to county wind, solar and battery-energy storage (CBESS) regulations and taking public comment on a draft released Sept. 5.

Rose Fisher, a resident who said she was a retired auditor, told the board she had compared video and transcripts with the new draft and found multiple discrepancies. "Throughout this whole process, it appears that regional planning has been selective about what changes were made or not made because in many instances, the draft doesn't really match what was discussed," she said, urging the supervisors to review the updated draft while the changes remain fresh.

Board members and Southeast Iowa regional planning staff responded that the intention was to complete work on all sections and then review a consolidated draft chapter-by-chapter. The board agreed to solicit written lists of discrepancies and have staff compile them into the packet for a review session tentatively scheduled for Sept. 23; staff asked residents to send comments to the auditor's office by the Thursday prior to the review so items can be included in the work-session packet.

Key technical changes discussed include a standalone CBESS article with setback tables and chemistry-specific distinctions, new noise limits, security and signage requirements, and environmental protections:

- Setbacks and applicability: The draft adds two setback tables that distinguish non-lithium chemistries from lithium-containing batteries; setbacks for lithium systems are generally larger. Staff explained setbacks are measured from the battery equipment's closest point to a structure or property line and apply to CBESS at the time of construction. The draft allows property-owner written waivers to shorten setbacks for specific properties.

- Noise: Draft language proposes lowering a previous 55 dB(A) standard to 50 dB(A) when measured at an occupied dwelling or civic building on a non-participating property. Supervisors and residents debated measurement location (property line vs. dwelling) and whether a 50-dB standard would effectively preclude projects or be enforceable; Henry County's comparative approach (60 dB with a tiered system) was discussed as an alternative.

- Fire and safety standards: The ordinance would reference NFPA standards (NFPA 855, NFPA 70 and NFPA 1) and require signage with battery chemistry, GPS coordinates and 24-hour emergency contacts, locked entries outside maintenance windows, and a vegetation buffer and combustible-material clearance of 30 feet near CBESS components.

- Environmental protections: New language would require consultation with Iowa DNR and the county soil and water conservation district for sensitive features (streams, wetlands), require secondary containment and retention sized for a 100-year, 24-hour storm plus firewater if developers seek reduced setbacks, and mandate quarterly sampling in year one for pH and select metals and lithium; exceedances would trigger developer action plans and continued monitoring.

Public commenters and some supervisors urged clearer cross-references (e.g., whether conservation, soil and water, public health or DNR should receive specific notifications) and asked that language explicitly require developers to accept responsibility for contamination caused by their facilities rather than burdening nearby landowners.

Board members also discussed the legal and practical feasibility of putting the ordinance question to a countywide ballot; the county attorney cautioned about constitutional or regulatory-taking implications and said the board would need to research whether a local referendum mechanism would apply to land-use ordinances.

What happens next: Staff will accept written comments into the auditor's office for inclusion in the Sept. 23 review packet; the board will hold a consolidated review of the draft sections and continue work on the battery-storage section at a future session. Residents and stakeholders were asked to coordinate written lists of discrepancies to help the board efficiently consider edits.

Selected quotes from the meeting:

"Throughout this whole process, it appears that regional planning has been selective about what changes were made or not made because in many instances, the draft doesn't really match what was discussed," Rose Fisher said.

Regional planning staff said they would ensure previously discussed items—such as a 30-day cleanup timeframe in certain failure events—are reviewed and that the consolidated draft will be re-examined with the board.