Land and Water Resource Management Plans

County Land and Water Resource Management (LWRM) Plans are a locally developed idea that was proposed in the fall of 1996 by county conservation professionals in response to draft state agency recommendations for redesigning Wisconsin’s nonpoint programs. The idea was promoted by the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association during state legislative deliberations in spring and summer of 1997. The idea became the central theme to landmark legislation signed into law in October 1997 as part of the state budget bill (WI Act 27).

The basic concept includes that state agencies establish minimum statewide performance standards and prohibitions for nonpoint pollution and soil erosion control and these standards will be used as a basis for distributing local grants.  For example, minimum agricultural performance standards include:

1. Control soil erosions to meet tolerable soil loss (T) calculated by RUSLE 2 (cropland);
    
2. Construct, maintain and close manure storage facilities to prevent manure overflows and leaks (livestock and facilities);
    
3. Divert clean water from feedlots (livestock operations and facilities within Water Quality Management Areas);
    
4. Manure management prohibitions:
   a)  No overflow from manure storage facilities;
   b)  No unconfined manure stacks within the Water Quality Management Area;
   c)  No direct runoff from feedlots and manure storage facilities; and
   d)  No unlimited access of livestock to shoreland that prevents maintenance of adequate sod cover (livestock and operations and other facilities).

5. Control nutrient runoff into waters of the state (cropland).

The concept also includes that each county develop a Land and Water Resource Management Plan, which explains how they will meet the state standards and address other local resource management concerns, and with state (and federal) grant assistance, counties lead local program implementation efforts, including regulatory measures, as needed.

The guiding principles include relying on a locally led process for plan development and implementation; allowing for maximum flexibility in state program grants; encouraging comprehensive watershed based efforts without excessive planning; rewarding innovation and cost effectiveness; requiring the seamless integration of programs and funding sources, making wise use of a wide variety of implementation tools; and ensuring meaningful program evaluation and accountability.