Implementing Agricultural
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6: Funding, tech assist, notice |
|||||||||
|
Q9: Voluntary? |
Q10: Non-voluntary? |
||||||||
|
Yes |
No |
US |
NA |
YL |
YS |
No |
US |
NA |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. |
48
|
1
|
12
|
1
|
12
|
7
|
13
|
29
|
1
|
| % |
77
|
2
|
19
|
2
|
19
|
11
|
21
|
47
|
2
|
Forty-eight counties (77%) indicated they would provide technical and cost-sharing assistance to eligible landowners who voluntarily apply, one (2%) said "No" and 12 (19%) were unsure. The majority of those who checked "No" or "Unsure" said that increased staff and cost-share funds would be needed to accomplish this task.
Twelve counties (19%) said they will issue notification under local authority to landowners unwilling to comply with performance standards or prohibitions, 7 counties (11%) said they will issue notification under state authority, 13 (21%) said "No" and 29 (47%) were unsure.
Most of the counties that responded negatively or were unsure commented that they were unwilling or uncomfortable having an enforcement role, some citing concern that an enforcement role would jeopardize their relationships with farmers. A few counties were willing to put a local face on the enforcement component but wanted an assurance of backing by the DNR or some flexibility for local appeals. Some counties said they would be willing to issue local notifications if their counties enact ordinances incorporating the performance standards and prohibitions, but just as many said their counties were unlikely to develop such ordinances. One county was in the process of writing a county ordinance and a few said they would use a combination of local and state notification, depending on the circumstances. There was a suggestion that the state should follow critical sites procedure. Many counties said they needed more information before they could answer this question.
Click here to see Component 6, questions 9-10 comments [PDF 161KB]