Humboldt supervisors advance wind ordinance after RWE calls draft 'unworkable'

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors accepted the first and second readings of Ordinance 77, the county's proposed wind-turbine ordinance, after an extended public hearing and a technical presentation by developers and county planning officials.

Christie Rogers, counsel for developer RWE, told the board the draft ordinance as written is “unworkable for any commercial wind project” and outlined a series of technical objections, including large occupied-dwelling setbacks, property-line setbacks that cover participating parcels, and expansive setbacks from rivers, parks and cemeteries. Rogers said RWE would be willing to negotiate a binding, private agreement with the county instead of engaging in protracted litigation, and offered that RWE could ‘‘pay for legal counsel’’ and discuss payment arrangements beyond ordinary taxes to address county concerns.

Rogers also pointed to recent state developments and a utilities-agency precedent that influenced RWE's approach to local permitting and noted a specific statutory reference in the draft: “Iowa Code 468.186,” which she said already provides process for drainage-district easements and related land-use coordination. She urged the board to narrow or clarify certain lists (for example, the ordinance's undefined category of "other parks and public areas") and to revise technical sound and shadow-flicker rules to industry practice.

Kevin Fouracre, chair of the county planning and zoning commission, defended the commission's work and the ordinance's protective intent. Fouracre cited legal precedent and manufacturer safety guidance in explaining why the commission included substantial setbacks, and said most setbacks in the draft can be reduced by variance or waiver where adjacent property owners agree. “We've tried to create some kind of balance,” Fouracre told the board, urging the supervisors to view the ordinance as a public-safety and land-use tool.

Public comment that followed covered a wide cross-section of viewpoints. Several speakers praised the planning-and-zoning commission's work and urged passage of the ordinance as written, saying it protects farmland, local quality of life and public safety. Other residents raised concerns about property values, road and tile-damage from construction, infrasound and sleep disruption from lights and shadow flicker, and argued the draft did not guarantee promised local economic benefits. RWE representatives replied with technical material and a map showing buildable "islands" under the ordinance's setbacks; RWE said that mapping indicated just 1,700 acres in the search area remained viable and argued that a 175-megawatt project could not be sited under the current rules.

The board voted to accept both readings and to keep the public hearing open for a third reading; supervisors decided against waiving the third reading and set the continuation for July 13, 2026 (time and publication requirements to be satisfied before that date). The roll calls on the readings were unanimous in the transcript record.

What happens next: planning staff and the board will continue the public process. The ordinance remains subject to further amendment before a final vote; RWE said it might also seek a state-level certificate in parallel if local ordinance changes are not made.

Quotes used in this article come directly from the hearing transcript and are attributed to the listed speakers.