Des Moines County supervisors approve second reading of wind, solar and battery ordinance amid public outcry

Des Moines County supervisors voted on Jan. 13 to approve the second reading of a new wind, solar and battery ordinance and to waive a third reading, moving the measure further along the county's adoption process. A roll-call recorded in the transcript shows Supervisors Sarah Marie (yes), Tom Broker (yes), Jim Carrey (yes) and Shane McCall (no).

The ordinance, which the land-use staff described as aimed at establishing minimum standards for siting, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of utility-scale wind, solar and battery systems, drew lengthy public comment after the vote. Jared Lasser, land-use staff, told the board that a final sentence in Article 12, Section D was a scrivener's error and was removed so obligations to restore property apply only to non-participating landowners rather than to participating landowners who are bound by private contracts.

Why it matters: speakers at the meeting said the change and other details could materially affect who bears long-term cleanup and decommissioning costs, and they asked whether edits and versions had been publicly circulated. "I'm unaware of any public conversations about those," public commenter Kyler Masmer said, urging the board to explain whether the deletion had been discussed in public work sessions.

Several commenters urged stronger protections for neighbors of leased land: Alison Moore of Yarmouth said many residents feel key concerns — property-line setbacks, reduced turbine height, a one-step permitting process and health and conservation safeguards — "were heard without being fully considered" and requested the board remain open to later changes if permits reveal gaps in the ordinance.

Other public commenters raised financial risk factors. One speaker noted that USDA changes affecting farmland eligibility for federal financing can raise project financing costs and argued the board should evaluate that risk when judging decommissioning assurances. A resident reading a statement from someone who lives inside a wind project described night-time noise, occasional vibration and ongoing construction impacts as reasons for caution.

Board response and next steps: Jared Lasser and the county auditor stated the draft with the corrected language was published prior to the meeting and that earlier public work sessions had discussed removing the sentence, which Lasser described as an unintended leftover from prior drafts. The transcript contains inconsistency in how the vote result was described aloud (a participant says "two to one" in questioning the record), but the roll-call text above records the named votes.

The ordinance remains subject to the county's established ordinance adoption procedures. The board did not rescind the vote at the meeting; the record shows the second reading was approved and the third reading was waived. Future permitting decisions, and whether supervisors amend the ordinance in response to implementation issues or additional public input, remain possible.

What the record does not show: the transcript does not contain the full text of any private lease agreements, nor does it include a formal legal ruling that the county may or may not regulate obligations that parties define in private contracts. The transcript also shows inconsistent spelling and naming in places (see audit notes), and the board's published documents should be consulted for the official legal text of the ordinance.

Ending: The board moved on to other agenda items after the public-comment period. Public commenters asked the supervisors to revisit setbacks, the permitting process and decommissioning assurances if future permits reveal shortcomings.