H 2 OHHHHHH!

At the Roundtable meeting between the Board and Commission, June 10th, the suggestion was made that the Planning Commission as a body take on the review of the Vermillion River Watershed Ordinance for possible adoption by the Township.  It was discussed that if it were to come to a VOTE by the Commission, at least one Commissioner felt right then and there that the point of view she espoused would just be voted down. (I think she would have a significant contribution to make.) At her comment, Board Chair Kenny Miller stated that it would not be a vote issue: the Commission, each Commissioner individually if desired, would report findings and opinions to the Board for its consideration.  If the Board intends to continue with this, I believe that having individuals submit their thoughts like this would be a good idea and that, further, these opinions should give the rationale supporting them.


This watershed issue has been a contentious matter in the Township in the past. (See previous posts and/or meeting minutes from 2008/2009.)  After public hearings and Township meetings during which opposition was fiercely expressed, the Board in place at the time (Yours Truly was on it) voted down adopting the Ordinance language, leaving those much more knowledgeable at the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO), such as watershed specialists and other technical folks, to administer that law. The law would still stand, it would be administered by the VRWJPO instead of by the Township.

The current Board has broached this topic briefly a number of times of late.  One Supervisor not at those earlier hearings and meetings who favors Eureka's adoption of the Ordinance stated saving the citizens money as his motivating factor.  However, any money or fees incurred, whether legal or engineering, etc., are to be borne by the applicant no matter who administers the Ordinance. So adopting the Ordinance wouldn't really change much in that respect.

Others have stated saving time for citizens as a reason.  However, since Watershed Specialist Travis Thiel has been responding to the Township regarding permitting issues in a timely manner, this no longer seems to be an issue either.  If there were to be a application more complex than the ones received to date, this would necessarily take more time regardless of administrator.  (OF NOTE: One Commissioner recently stated that all that is involved in the Watershed Ordinance is to make sure that soil erosion control and prevention measures are put in place. Not only is this grossly incorrect, but soil erosion control and prevention measures are not anything new, being required under the Ordinance already.

But let's get to the real crux of the matter: understanding the issues at hand.  One Commissioner at the Roundtable, Commissioner Jennings, said that she would strongly urge that Commissioners READ the Water Plan and Ordinance as part of their exploration of the topic, as many have not done that to date.  She stated that she has read the Plan and that it is a complex document. She should know as she holds a doctorate in geology and is familiar with such matters!

Let me relay a little story on this point.  Back when I was on the Planning Commission, when this whole topic first arose, I was sitting at the side table waiting for the Town Board Meeting to begin.  A fellow-Commissioner, now on the Board, came up and sat next to me.  When he saw that I had the new Water Plan open in front of me he asked, "You're not actually trying to read and understand that, are you?" I said I was surely going to give it a try since it was an important issue before the Commission and Board. This same person recently voted to have the Planning Commission look into the details.  I hope this time around he will actually read the documents and try to understand what is involved.  As with any ordinance, this affects people's lives and property; it's serious business.

My suggestion: not only should the Commission read the Water Plan and study the Ordinance, but that the Board should do so as well.

A former Board Chair loved to talk about "due diligence."  If the two bodies of officials are to accomplish their "due diligence" they must read the documents in question.  That's for starters...

Update after Planning Commission last night:  Commissioner Jennings asked Chair Hansen to direct the members to read the documents.  Hansen replied that he wasn't going to do so, that he had "no authority" to do so.  He said that if the others "wanted to read it, they could read it."  Jennings stated that it would be irresponsible to not read it.  Before he was done, Hansen asked the others to read the materials.  I guess he "has the authority" after all.


Jennings moved that the currently enforcing body (VRWJPO) be asked to come to a meeting and discuss the Ordinance with the Commission. Commissioner Cleminson seconded her motion.  The vote that followed had Jennings, Cleminson, and Barfknecht voting "yes."  Commissioner Novacek voted "no!" Chair Hansen abstained!  Why would anyone vote "no" on such a motion designed to inform?  Why would one "not have an opinion" (surely there was no conflict to trigger an abstention) and abstain from voting?  If you figure that one out, let me know.

Cleminson then moved to also invite Brian Watson of the SWCD to the meeting, even though he is not with the VRWJPO.  (Watson is involved with wetlands.) I forget who seconded that-maybe Novacek-but at least this time around the motion passed unanimously.