Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and conservation board clash with supervisors over proposed wind-turbine setbacks
Summary
Public comment at the Des Moines County Board on Nov. 18 centered on proposed setback recommendations from the conservation board. Supervisors warned volunteer boards should not be given de facto ordinance-making power; conservation members and residents raised wildlife and debris concerns.
The Des Moines County Board of Supervisors heard extended public comment Nov. 18 on revised setback recommendations submitted by the county conservation board intended to reduce local impacts from utility-scale wind turbines. The conservation representative said the board’s role is to conserve natural resources; supervisors said elected officials — not volunteer advisory boards — must decide final ordinance language.
Supervisor Tom Brooker told the conservation board that volunteers should not be placed in a position that could effectively prohibit development. "We can't put a volunteer board in a position to prohibit wind development or anything like that," Brooker said, expressing concern that formalized "recommendations" in ordinance language would subject volunteers to outside pressure and bind elected officials.
Ron Heling, speaking for the conservation board, apologized for the timing of the recommendations but framed the board’s duty differently: "From a conservation board perspective ... the turbines will do nothing but destroy what we're committed to conserve," he said, urging mitigation measures and sensitive-area review. He described the conservation board’s recommendations as an effort to conserve wildlife and habitat.
Several residents urged stronger protections. Charles Tominson said blade size and debris fields have grown with modern turbines and questioned a 1,800-foot minimum setback: "Your debris field has to go bigger," he said, citing greater blade diameters and ice-throw concerns. Other commenters raised worries about fiberglass fragments after blade failures and whether cleanup in rural timber would be thorough and timely.
Board members and the conservation board discussed mitigation options including setbacks, selective shut-off protocols and consultation before ordinance language is finalized. One supervisor noted that a letter referenced in public discussion that suggested a 100-foot bat buffer was not codified in any county ordinance: "Just because they put it in their letter doesn't mean it ends up in our ordinance," the chair said.
Why it matters: The discussion pits property-rights concerns and development interests against conservation and safety worries. Supervisors indicated they will weigh the conservation board’s input but emphasized that final ordinance decisions rest with elected officials.
Next steps: The board did not adopt ordinance language Nov. 18. Supervisors asked staff and counsel to review recommended wording and consult stakeholders; further deliberations and possible ordinance drafting were indicated for a future meeting.
