My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1995-10-26_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
199x
>
1995
>
1995-10-26_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2010 3:56:54 PM
Creation date
4/12/2010 3:14:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/26/1995
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Soil loss ordinances: the different <br />experiences of two counties <br />ill ore unty <br />At first glance, Fillmore <br />County's experience with its <br />soil loss ordinance might <br />seem negative: after all, a <br />judge recently ruled the <br />ordinance unconstitutionally <br />vague. Despite that, the <br />ordinance is still a good thing, <br />said Darrell Brekke, manager <br />of Fillmore Soil and Water <br />Conservation District (SWCD) <br />When farmers see areas with <br />less erosion than their own <br />farms cited, it encourages <br />them to visit the SWCD to <br />discuss how the problem can <br />be corrected, Brekke said. <br />Then they can gradually <br />install the appropriate prac- <br />tices. <br />The ordinance has its roots in <br />the efforts of then-state <br />Representative Elton <br />Redalen, who still farms in <br />Fillmore County, to pass a <br />state soil loss law in the early <br />1980s. Although his attempts <br />at the state level were unsuc- <br />cessful, Fillmore County <br />passed its own ordinance in <br />1982, Brekke said.. <br />The original ordinance was <br />"pretty loose" and was up- <br />dated in 1990 to require <br />landowners to be in compli- <br />ance with. "T'--a tolerable level <br />of soil erosion, or the rate at <br />which topsoil can replace <br />itself. In most of Fillmore <br />County, T is five tons of soil <br />per year. Under the ordi- <br />nance, the SWCD investi- <br />gates complaints to determine <br />if the area in question ex- <br />ceeds that limit. <br />If it does, then the SWCD <br />works with the landowner to <br />develop a plan to address the <br />problem, Brekke said. The <br />district gives the landowner <br />every possible opportunity to <br />cooperate, and virtually all do, <br />Brekke said. <br />If the landowner is not coop- <br />erative, Brekke informs the <br />zoning office, which notifies <br />the county attorney, who <br />writes the farmer a letter <br />explaining the violation. Of the <br />50 to 55 cases the SWCD has <br />handled, only a few have <br />gone that far, Brekke said. <br />The recent "unconstitutional" <br />ruling started with a complaint <br />filed in June 1993. Although <br />the farmer is installing a <br />number of practices on his <br />land-including waterways, <br />Fillmore con't on p. 3 <br />r uy <br />Although only one formal <br />complaint has been filed since <br />the Mower County soil loss <br />ordinance went into effect <br />January 1, 1994, that doesn't <br />mean there hasn't been <br />activity resulting from the <br />ordinance, said Bev Nordby, <br />manager of Mower Soil and <br />Water Conservation District <br />(SWCD). <br />The ordinance, combined with <br />a strong education effort by <br />the SWCD that included direct <br />mailings and newsletters, <br />encouraged a number of <br />farmers to use federal cost- <br />share dollars to install conser- <br />vation practices the summer <br />and fall after it was passed, <br />Nordby said. About 10 prac- <br />tices such as waterways, <br />terraces, etc., were installed <br />in 1994 as a result of the <br />ordinance, Nordby estimated. <br />The Mower County ordinance <br />takes an incremental ap- <br />proach to the problem, regu- <br />lating first the most severely <br />eroding land and then gradu- <br />ally expanding to cover all <br />land in the county. The ordi- <br />nance is enforced on a "by <br />complaint" basis, Nordby said. <br />The one formal complaint. the <br />district received involved a <br />landowner that had cropped a <br />waterway. The landowner <br />received cost-share dollars <br />and restored the waterway <br />this past spring, Nordby said. <br />Partly because of the success <br />of the education effort associ- <br />ated with the ordinance, the <br />Mower con't on p. 3 <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.