Nearly everyone in the room was there to discuss just one topic on the board’s agenda — a proposed update to the county’s zoning ordinance for wind turbines.

Following an hour-long public hearing, during which more than a dozen residents and interested parties gave their comments on the proposal, the board voted to approve the first consideration of an amended version of the ordinance recommended by the zoning commission.

Supervisors Niki Conrad, Mark Campbell and Bob Thode voted to pass the first consideration, with Supervisor Austin Hayek casting the lone opposed vote. Supervisor Nick Carlson said that due to his ownership of some land in the northeast part of the county, he would recuse himself from voting on the issue.

Officially, there are no active wind farm development projects in Webster County, though two developers — MidAmerican Energy Co. and Invenergy — have started to approach some landowners in the eastern and northeastern part of the county to obtain voluntary easements for wind turbine construction. That activity led to the Webster County Planning and Zoning Commission to look at the zoning ordinance for the construction of wind turbines.

-Messenger photo by Kelby Wingert
Wind turbines in the Lundgren Wind Farm in the southern part of Webster County have been operational since 2013.

Under the current ordinance — enacted about a decade ago for the Lundgren Wind Farm project in southern Webster County — commercial wind turbines cannot be constructed within 150 feet of property lines; 600 feet of wildlife management areas and state recreational areas; 600 feet of wetlands; or 1,000 feet of neighboring dwelling units.

After several public meetings this spring with input from residents, land owners and project developers, the commission settled on stricter setback requirements that it felt were a compromise between what landowners who are opposing a new project and the project developers proposed. That compromise included revised setback requirements of:

• 2,500 feet from non-participating parcels of land less than five acres in size

• 2,500 feet from a residential dwelling unit on a non-participating parcel of land greater than five acres

• 1,000 feet from a residential dwelling unit that has a participating residential dwelling owner

The setback requirements proposed also include a minimum of 1.1 times the tower height away from property lines, roads, cemeteries and other structures; minimum of one mile away from state parks, county conservation areas and the Des Moines River; and minimum of 600 feet from United States Fish and Wildlife Service wetlands two acres or greater in size.

The commission approved its recommendation to send to the Board of Supervisors at the end of April. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors amended the commission’s proposal by reducing the 2,500-foot setback to 1,800 feet.

Before the ordinance is adopted, it must go through three public hearings and considerations by the supervisors. Tuesday’s meeting was the first of this series.

In total, with both written and oral comments (excluding duplicates of individuals who submitted written comments and also spoke at the hearing), nine people spoke in opposition to any wind farm development in Webster County. Five people spoke in favor.

According to a presentation by a group of landowners against wind turbines, including Daphne Wilwerth, “the majority of landowners that have signed [up] do not live in Webster County or in the rural areas” and don’t have any “skin in the game.” Of the 15 easement signers in Newark Township, only three landowners will live by turbines, Wilwerth said, labeling the other 12 signers “absentee landowners.”

“The vast majority of landowners reject this project,” Nancy Schmalenberger, of Vincent, added.

Dan Larson and Jim Legvold, Newark Township trustees, echoed that argument.

Diane Willard, of Webster City, is a self-identified “absentee landowner,” she said when she voiced support for a wind farm project. She argued that despite not residing in the county, she still contributes to the Webster County economy and her input should be valued the same as someone who does live on their property.

“Just because we’re absentee doesn’t mean our money isn’t being spent here,” she said.

Nick Wilwerth, of rural Vincent, questioned why a wind energy project would be considered over nuclear energy.

“Wind power is one of the worst and inefficient forms of clean energy in 2023,” he said. “We have the ability and technology to manipulate atoms and harness the sun, we’re putting up windmills. Nuclear fusion exists, nuclear fission exists, and we’re putting up windmills.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, while nuclear fission — the splitting of atoms to create energy that is eventually converted into electricity — is a common process, nuclear fusion is not and is still being studied by scientists. Nuclear fusion occurs when two atoms slam together to form a heavier atom, like when two hydrogen atoms fuse to form one helium atom.

Nick Wilwerth also noted that MidAmerican Energy Co. is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a multinational holding company owned by billionaire Warren Buffett. Wilwerth said the company only invests in wind energy because it is “very profitable” due to many tax benefits.

Shari Hoover, who owns property south of Duncombe, shared that she wants to sign up to have a wind turbine on her property, but the proposed setbacks from Brushy Creek State Recreation Area would make it “impossible.” She also commented on the wide gap between the least restrictive and the most restrictive proposed setbacks.

“We have too many extremes,” she said. “There needs to be compromise.”

Compromise is what Campbell had in mind when he made a motion to amend the proposed ordinance amendment from a 2,500-foot setback for non-participating dwellings to a 1,800-foot setback, keeping the remaining requirements as proposed.

“That’s what I recommend to keep this conversation going into the second reading and see where it goes,” he said.

During the public hearing, rural Vincent resident Liz Christensen requested the board issue a moratorium on the development of wind farm projects while the issue of setbacks is being addressed.

“As the Board of Supervisors, I don’t believe we have the legal authority to put a moratorium on wind turbines,” Conrad told The Messenger. “That said, as is the case today, we do have the authority to approve or reject ordinances which put setbacks and whatnot in place to make it easier or harder, as the case may be, for wind turbine companies to come here.”

Conrad noted that once the board approves — or rejects — an updated ordinance, any developer of a wind farm project would still have to go through one extra step that can further restrict the setbacks that the ordinance puts in place.

“Any project that comes through Webster County also has to go through a conditional use permit process,” she said.

According to the county’s zoning ordinance, the Webster County Board of Adjustment is the governing body that can approve a conditional use permit.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson has previously said that if the county’s zoning ordinance is written to be so restrictive that it effectively bans new construction of wind turbines, that could leave the county vulnerable to lawsuits.

On Tuesday, County Attorney Darren Driscoll confirmed with The Messenger that litigation is a possible outcome if an excessively restrictive ordinance is put in place, however he said he didn’t know how likely it would be.

“There’s potential for litigation, no matter what happens,” he added.

Adam Jablonski, vice president of resource development for MidAmerican Energy Co., said that MidAmerican has just started talking to land owners and is in the “exploratory phase” of a potential project. He also said that, in the area considered for development, a 2,500-foot setback requirement would leave “zero buildable” acres in Webster County. He said that an 1,800-foot setback leaves seven buildable acres, and a setback of 1,500 feet leaves 10 buildable acres.

“This is very prohibitive for those who want it.”

Jablonski previously said if the project does happen, it would be at least three years before any construction would begin.

Joe Crowley, a representative of the Chicago-based Invenergy, stated for the record that Invenergy would only work with voluntarily-signed easements from landowners and would not seek to use eminent domain to seize the land.

According to Don Tormey, communications director for the Iowa Utilities Board, although a wind farm company could seek an electric generation certificate and request the use of eminent domain, “no company has filed such a request with the IUB as wind farms are generally constructed in a manner that would not require a generation certificate form the IUB.”

The proposed ordinance will have to pass two more considerations, which will each have a public hearing period. The next public hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. June 20, during the Board of Supervisors’ regular meeting.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)

• Daily Newsletter
• Breaking News
• Obituaries

Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

• Yes
• No