Washington County again modifies wind ordinance

WASHINGTON — Washington County supervisors have once more modified a proposed ordinance governing commercial wind turbines in the area, restarting the public hearing process for local legislation that’s faced numerous false starts in the last several years.

In a meeting on Nov. 26, supervisors said they agreed with public comment-makers at an earlier hearing who argued the generators should have the same setback from human occupied structures as was mandated from state and federal parks.

The previous proposal called for a waivable half-mile setback from occupied structures, but a one-mile setback from state and federal parks, including Lake Darling. The new version sets both distances to one mile.

Either approach would effectively ban wind energy conversion systems in Washington County. Turbines have not developed in any Iowa county with half-mile or greater setback requirements, even when those restrictions are waivable for nearby property owners. But supervisors last week said they wanted to make their opposition to the technology abundantly clear, claiming the turbines exploited state subsidies, disrupted landscapes and posed an environmental hazard.

“The general feeling I get in the county is people don’t want them, and I think setting the setback to a mile will send a message that the people of Washington County are not in favor of having a wind farm,” Supervisor Jack Seward said. “There are particular land owners that like the idea of a guaranteed income on a piece of their property … but we also need to take into account the feelings of the population of the county in general.”

Still, the all-Republican board of supervisors stopped short of outlawing the turbines outright. Seward said he didn’t feel it was appropriate to explicitly prevent a company from doing business if it followed local regulations.

“We don’t necessarily have the right or the privilege to get in the middle of a contract between a company and an individual,” he said. “We just need to set the parameters that, if a commercial company like this is going to come in, this is how they’re going to have to do business.”

  Buy Photo

Supervisors also fixed a typo in the amendment, correcting an instance where the word “closest” was written as “closet.”

The amendment means supervisors must again hold a public hearing for the modified ordinance, scheduled Dec. 9 at 7 p.m. at the Washington County Courthouse. It represents another reset for a policy that’s faced countless false starts in the last several years.

A proposed county wind energy ordinance in 2021 stalled in a 2-2 stalemate between supervisors as the board waited out the election of a vacancy-filling fifth member. But moments before the meeting when that member — Supervisor Marcus Fedler — swore in, the company scouting the area for a wind farm abruptly called off its plans, and supervisors canceled the vote.

An effort to resume the conversation in 2022 petered out, and when another company approached the county in 2023, it took over a year to iron out details for road use agreements and decommissioning standards before supervisors finally voted on an ordinance in September, approving it unanimously.

That version of the code, however, never went on the books. County officials said there were clerical errors, namely the fact that a handful of changes were made after a public hearing for the ordinance without public notice ahead of time. A public hearing in November was meant to restart the process to formally enact the local law approved months prior, but a handful of public comments there led supervisors to pitch restrictions on the turbines that were even stricter.

Despite the repetition, County Attorney Nathan Repp advised the supervisors to carefully check every box in the approval process, and encouraged the follow-up public hearing.

“There could be an argument that it’s not necessary, but why let it be an argument when you can just have another meeting, to make sure everyone has an opportunity to be heard on it as written?” he said.

While the board of supervisors discussed a handful of other clarification changes for the proposed ordinance, most agreed those could be fixed in later amendments as the group struggles to push the more substantive set of regulations across the finish line.

That list of potentially unaddressed issues includes questions about whether waivers are required for structures built after turbines go up, financial liability for dispute resolutions, and landowners’ responsibilities for proving baselines if they want to take energy companies to court if turbines affect sediment levels in groundwater.

“I’m not sure it would make a significant difference,” Supervisor Marcus Fedler said. “We could also add it later, after it’s approved, and make the adjustments then. I’m just afraid it would take an exorbitant amount of time.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com