Wind ordinance adopted, moratorium lifted

After two years, three and one-half months, six public hearings regarding ordinance amendments and countless public comments, the temporary moratorium restricting the construction of wind turbines in the unincorporated areas of the county will officially be lifted Oct. 1. The decision was passed unanimously Monday at the regular meeting of the Clarke County Board of Supervisors, less than one week after the most recent update to the ordinance was approved.

Prior to Monday’s meeting, the supervisors had held a public meeting Sept. 17 to discuss the latest amendments to the county’s wind ordinance, found in Section 23 “Wind Energy Conversion Systems Regulations.” The meeting came a few weeks after an Aug. 5 meeting, from which the supervisors had taken public comments for review.

Ordinance adoption

Speaking to a full board room, the supervisors began by reading a short presentation about what they aimed to do with the ordinance.

The first point was to protect agricultural land by aligning with the county’s comprehensive plan by making an ordinance that is more restrictive in setbacks and regulations; an upgrade from the previous ordinance to add greater protection for citizens and farmlands and encouraging responsible development for any potential wind project developer.

Point two was to avoid legal risk and act in good faith. Citing Geisler v. City Council of Cedar Falls, the Iowa Supreme Court confirmed that a moratorium is a “legitimate legislative function to allow time for a governing body to study an issue and adopt a new ordinance,” but established the precedence that the courts can intervene if a city or county enacts a moratorium in bad faith.

A way to demonstrate “good faith” is to have a robust, well-defined ordinance in place, which the supervisors are doing by using the moratorium to draft a clear, legally defensible framework for future projects. By leaving the moratorium in place and not working on the ordinance, a developer could argue that the county had created a de facto permanent ban and were acting in bad faith to stop a project.

The final point discussed the board’s position and vision:

“We are listening: we have heard the concerns of the citizens of Clarke County, and took comments from our neighbors and friends to modify the ordinance. This ordinance reflects those concerns by creating some of the most restrictive and protective standards for wind energy in the state. The goal is to protect our way of life.”

The new ordinance strikes a balance by allowing for responsible wind energy development while also ensuring county and citizen protection by having strict ordinances for the companies to follow. By adopting the ordinance, the supervisors are being proactive with strong rules in place to give the county control over “future land use, protect us from litigation and safeguard the interests of our agricultural community for years to come.”

Before opening the floor to comments, supervisor Randy Dunbar reminded the public that the only thing the supervisors were talking about was the zoning ordinance.

“What is it, what it has been and how we’ve changed it to benefit the community,” he said.

Clarke County Zoning Director Rob McCaulley took a couple of minutes to talk about the miscommunication regarding the ordinance and the meeting.

“This meeting today is about passing the ordinance, not whether or not we’re getting wind turbines,” McCaulley said, explaining that the initial ordinance had been copied from the state’s. “We took that ordinance from basically 700 feet from the property line and went to 2,640… we [have] to get something in place by law to support our ordinances.”

While several people spoke about misunderstanding what the meeting was about, some comments and questions were presented:

• Comments for increased setbacks, including that if city limits have a two-mile setback, so too should county residents. The setbacks set in other counties was touched on, with some such as Madison County being more restrictive.

• Concerns about decreased farm and land values and how tax assessments on neighboring property will be handled.

• Health issues related to wind turbines that have not been fully studied.

• Concerns over feuding within the county over the subject of wind turbines.

• Questioning on why turbines in the county couldn’t be put on a ballot for a vote.

• Saying the zoning ordinance should be so extreme companies could not build, and that the waivers shouldn’t be allowed at all. “If the property can’t have a wind turbine and they go to the neighbor and want him to sign off so he can, because the property line is too close, that’s wrong. You gotta think to the future,” one citizen said.

• Calls to listen to what the public was saying both about the ordinance and turbines.

In regards to wind turbines being put on a ballot for a yes or no vote, unlike some states that allow for public petition for many topics, the state of Iowa does not allow for initiative or veto referendum processes. The state only allows for certain items to be brought forth on a ballot that list a specific code section, the duty of which is upon a petitioner to identify the code section for a public measure.

After public comment, the supervisors waived the third reading and approved the ordinance. Bullet points of the ordinance can be found in the box below.

Moratorium decision

Monday’s meeting had a handful of citizens speak against lifting the moratorium.

Some questioned information presented at previous public hearings, including new turbine construction in neighboring counties and comments that the state would take over.

“We talked to legislature... [they] say ‘we are not in favor of the state regulating our ordinances,’” a citizen told the board.

Concerns about turning the county into a junkyard of broken turbines was brought forth, and their impact on future generations.

“It’s these younger generations that are going to be putting up with this [stuff] after you’re dead and gone,” a citizen said.

“This is rural Iowa, country. Can’t we keep it country? Leave the lights and the big things to the cities?” another questioned, adding they wanted their children to be able to enjoy the sights and sounds of nature.

Concerns about what constitutes a neighbor when an absentee landowner might agree to have a wind turbine on their land, yet not live here, were brought up.

Comments urged the supervisors to keep the moratorium on longer, noting that Hardin County has one until 2030, another to leave the moratorium on until the tax credit eliminations under President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” come into full effect. More than 300 signatures have been collected from people opposed to wind farms.

A suggestion was also made that any land that has a wind turbine should be classified as commercial land.

Supervisor Dean Robins spoke of the work that has been done since the moratorium was put in place June 12, 2023, after the supervisors were made aware of a wind developer’s intent to begin work in the country. He said part of that work had been to talk to other counties that have turbines, many of whom encouraged Clarke County to make sure they had ordinances in place before any turbines arrived.

“[Planning & Zoning] didn’t just show up and stick something together, they put something in place that basically allows landowner [rights], not taking property rights from anyone in the county… looking at half mile setback with waivers, it’s going to be really, really tough for [turbine developers] to jump through the hoops to make it work,” Robins said. “They’re not taking your property rights away, but protecting your property rights as a neighbor, that’s what they’re trying to do… and I think they’ve done an excellent job putting it together.”

Supervisor Brian Sorensen agreed that the regulations are “hard” on wind turbines. Both Robins and Dunbar reiterated that the moratorium was just a temporary tool to allow the county to get their ordinances in place.

Dunbar addressed statements that the supervisors were pro-turbines or only lifting the moratorium for monetary purposes.

“For anybody that thinks that we’re just out for windmills… [the] only thing we had to do was shut our eyes and watch them come. And it was a 1200-foot setback,” Dunbar said. “If we hadn’t put the moratorium on, they’d have been here.”

“We hear you, but we’re trying to do the best we can to protect the county,” Robins added.

Pertaining to potential revenue generated from a wind farm, Robins and Dunbar said as supervisors, they needed to do what could to bring in income for the county and that by leaving a moratorium on it would have the opposite effect by resulting in a lawsuit. As the state requires a special valuation of wind energy property as found in Iowa Code 427B.26, a seven-year tax abatement is put on wind projects, after which the property is taxed at 30% of the net acquisition cost.

After more discussion, lifting of the moratorium to begin Oct. 1 was approved.

No permits have been filed as of yet by any wind developers. Prior interest by RPM Access, a wind energy company based out of De Soto, originally had 26 turbines in mind, but an increase in turbine size cut that number in half.

It has been stated that the only place on the power grid that could accommodate a wind farm is northwest of Murray, near the Madison County line, in Madison and Troy townships.