Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State by Andrew Broderick

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State: A Two County Comparison of Farmland Change and Preservation Andrew Broderick October 21, 2010 UP 502: Environmental Planning Professor Larissa Larsen

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

Known around the world as ‘The Dairy State,’ Wisconsin is a major agricultural production center in the United States, and is well known for its dairy production. Blessed with fertile soils and gentle, rolling hills, Wisconsin has a 200 year history of agricultural production. In 2002, Wisconsin’s agricultural production totaled $5.6 billion, which is the tenth highest in the nation (State Agricultural Profile, 2010). However, because of rapidly expanding suburban development, the decrease in family farms due to competition and lifestyle choices, the historical lack of agricultural preservation vision, and the fragmentation of local governments, farmland in Wisconsin is decreasing in amount. In fact, according to a 2007 report by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NCRS), Wisconsin lost 520,500 acres or 3.5% of agricultural land directly to development between 1982 and 2007, which ranks in the top 15 in the nation (Figure 1)(NRCS, 2007). This paper explores the issue of farmland conversion and preservation in the state by investigating two counties in southeast Wisconsin, Jefferson and Waukesha, that are a microcosm of larger farmland conversion and preservation efforts in the state. This paper summarizes the natural physio-geographic features of both counties; investigates population change, development patterns, and agricultural farmland production in the counties; and evaluates current preservation efforts at the state and county levels.

Waukesha and Jefferson Counties, which are adjacent to one another (see Figure 2 next page and Appendix, Figures 5-6), are used to compare the driving forces behind farmland conversion and preservation in the state. These counties are selected because they are geographically close, approximately the same size, and they feature similar agricultural products, yet they are different in several ways that makes for an interesting comparison. First, Waukesha County is a rapidly growing suburban area within the Milwaukee-Racine Metropolitan Statistical Area that is losing farmland while growing in population. Jefferson County,

Agricultural Land Converted to Developed Land 1982 to 2007 State Texas California Florida Arizona North Carolina Ohio Tennessee Pennsylvania Michigan Illinois Georgia Kentucky Colorado Wisconsin Indiana

Acres 2,869,600 1,767,200 1,550,700 925,700 820,600 818,200 791,000 728,700 726,000 663,900 647,100 618,000 605,200 520,500 503,100

Figure 1: The number of acres converted from agricultural land to developed land, 1982 to 2007. Wisconsin is 14th in the nation.

on the other hand, isn’t losing farmland and isn’t growing in population as fast. Second, Waukesha County features exceptional natural features including the Kettle Moraine and a plethora of freshwater lakes, both of which aren’t present in Jefferson County. Finally, the counties value different things when it comes to farming and development. Jefferson County has a long history of dairy farming, and values its agricultural characteristics very highly. Waukesha County, however, no

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

Wisconsin State Boundary County Boundary and Name

NAME

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Note: All boundaries and names are as of January 1, 2007.

ASHLAND (part)

DOUGLAS

BAYFIELD IRON ASHLAND (part)

WASHBURN

SAWYER

FLORENCE ONEIDA

PRICE POLK

FOREST

RUSK

BARRON

MARINETTE

DOOR

(part)

LINCOLN

CHIPPEWA

ST. CROIX

(part)

MENOMINEE

DUNN PIERCE

MARINETTE

LANGLADE

TAYLOR

MARATHON

DOOR

SHAWANO

CLARK

EAU CLAIRE

OCONTO (part)

NE E

PEPIN

TR EM PE AL E

WAUPACA

WOOD

JACKSON

BROWN

OUTAGAMIE

MANITOWOC WAUSHARA

YG AN

GREEN LAKE

FOND DU LAC

SAUK

COLUMBIA

DODGE

WA SH IN

CRAWFORD

RICHLAND

IOWA

GT ON

VERNON

DANE

JEFFERSON WAUKESHA

GRANT

KEE

ADAMS

SH EB O

JUNEAU

OZA U

MONROE

WINNEBAGO CALUMET

MILWAUKE E

LA CROSSE

MA RQ UE TT E

BUFFALO

PORTAGE

KE WA U

BURNETT

VILAS

RACINE LAFAYETTE

GREEN

ROCK

WALWORTH KENOSHA

50 Miles

Figure 2: Map of the State of Wisconsin Showing Counties. Jefferson and Waukesha Counties are highlighted in different shades of blue.

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State longer values its farming tradition as much as it once did and is now primarily interested in economic development in other industries including light industry and healthcare.

Natural Features Overview Southeast Wisconsin’s physiographic characteristics make it one of the richest agricultural centers in the world. Situated in the interior plains physiographic region and the central lowlands physiographic province, Wisconsin features broad, rolling hills composed of sedimentary rocks such as limestone, sandstone, and shale (Marsh, 2005). Four glacial periods, the last of which occurred 10 thousand years ago, carved the landscape in southeast Wisconsin, and they left behind freshwater lakes, moraines, drumlins, and deposits of high quality soil (see Appendix, Figure 7). Small freshwater lakes dot the landscape of both Waukesha and Jefferson Counties, but Waukesha County has more. In fact, Waukesha County has 33 lakes between 50 and 3,000 acres in size while Jefferson County has only seven lakes of similar size (Waukesha County, 2005; Wisconsin DOT, 2010). In addition to the difference in number and size of freshwater lakes, Waukesha County is home to the Kettle Moraine State Forest, which is a prominent geographic feature of wooded ridges and valleys that flow from northeast to southwest through the western portion of the county.

The soils in both Waukesha and Jefferson are highly fertile, loess-based soils that are highly suitable for agricultural production. In fact, 77 % of farmland in Waukesha County alone sits on soils designated as “national prime farmland” by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (Waukesha County, 2005).

Despite both counties close relation to Lake Michigan, they sit within the Fox-Rock Rivers Watershed, so all surface water flows west to the Mississippi River (the sub-continental surface water divide falls almost exactly on the border between Waukesha and Milwaukee Counties) (Waukesha County, 2005). However, the counties do not share groundwater from the same aquifer, and this may present a development challenge as the Great Sandstone Aquifer divide is shifting west into Jefferson County as development intensity and water use increases in Waukesha County (see Appendix, Figure 8).

Agricultural Overview Currently, 28% of land in Waukesha County is used for agricultural purposes while 69% of land in Jefferson County is used for agricultural purposes (Waukesha County, 2005; Bollman, 2009). The entire state is 44% farmland (Stage

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Agricultural Profile, 2010). Farmland in both counties is mostly used for the production of crops including corn, soybean, wheat, oats, and hay/alfalfa. In 2007, corn and soybeans were by far the most prevalent crops harvested in Jefferson and Waukesha Counties, accounting for about 75% of the total harvested cropland (see Appendix, Table 2). Statewide, wheat is increasing in popularity, boasting a 311% increase in acres from 1992 to 2007, however the change in wheat yields for Jefferson and Waukesha Counties can’t be determined due to lack of data in the USDA Agricultural Census.

Livestock and poultry are also common especially beef and dairy cows. Living up to the ‘Dairy State’ nickname, Wisconsin has 1.25 million dairy cows statewide, which is second highest in the nation next to California (1.8 million)(USDA, 2007). In fact, milk products are 47% of the entire state’s agricultural products (USDA, 2002). Jefferson County has a significant dairy farming industry that is much more robust than Waukesha County, which has lost over half (66%) of its milk cow population since 1992. According to a 2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, small and midsize dairy farmers are having a tough time making ends meet as milk prices are driven down by large producers and tight credit markets to expand business small farms (Barrett, 2009). To counter this trend, state subsides, such as the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC), are in place to help small and mid size dairy farmers (Stein, 2010).

Relationship Between Population Growth and Cropland Area Since 1990, the State of Wisconsin increased in population by 16%, growing from 4.9 million people in 1990 to 5.7 million people in 2009. This population growth coincides with a statewide 2% decrease in total cropland from 1992 to 2007, decreasing from 15.5 million acres to 15.1 million acres (USDA, 1992; 2007). Using the statewide trends as a benchmark, farmland conversion in Waukesha County greatly exceeds the state average while farmland conversion in Jefferson County bucks the average. Waukesha County had a 26% increase in population from 1990 to 2009 and a 24% decrease in amount of farmland from 1992 to 2007 (USDA, 2007; 1992). Jefferson County, however, had a 19% increase in population and a 5% growth in amount of farmland since 1992 (Table 1). Population density in the two counties is a contrast: Jefferson County has 145 people per square mile while Waukesha has 689 people per square mile (U.S. Census, 2009). State of Wisconsin 1

Percent Change in Population (1990 Ͳ 2009) Percent Change in Cropland (1992 Ͳ 2007) (acres)2

Jefferson County 16% Ͳ2%

Waukesha County 19% 5%

26% Ͳ24%

1. U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000); American Community Survey, 1Ͳyear results (2009) 2. U.S. Department of Agricultural Census (1992, 1997, 2007)

Table 1: Summary Comparison of Population Growth and Cropland for the State of Wisconsin, Jefferson County, and Waukesha County (1990-2009). See Appendix, Tables 2 -3 for full calculations and chart.

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

Drivers of Conversion Waukesha County’s farmland is being disproportionately converted into new developments because of three primary reasons: local planning regulations that encourage wasteful land use, inter-jurisdictional competition for property tax revenue, and a private-market based demand of higher-income earners wishing to live in Wisconsin’s Lake Country. As is true with many counties on the fringe of large metropolitan regions, suburban fringe expansion is enabled and regulated by local planning practices including transportation planning and zoning ordinances that don’t include or prioritize the protection of agricultural land. In many instances, the 37 local jurisdictions (towns, villages, cities) within Waukesha County have one half or one acre minimum lot requirements (SEWRPC, 2005). As noted by American Farmland Trust, “wasteful land use is the problem [with losing farmland], not growth itself” (Farming on the Fringe, 2010). Also, many local jurisdictions are competing against one another for property tax revenue from new development. Both of these elements – zoning regulations and tax revenue – are motives behind the controversial and gigantic Pabst Farms development in the City of Oconomowoc, a city of 13,000 people in western Waukesha County.

Pabst Farms, formerly the historic brewer’s 19th century farming estate, is a $400 million, 1,500 acre multi-use development funded partially through a $24 million tax incremental finance district (the largest ever in Wisconsin) (Rinard, 2007). The development plan, which began as a neo-traditional community in 1999, now features conventional suburban land use typologies such as industrial distribution facilities, single family homes, townhomes, and prototypical big box retail centers (Figures 3, 4). Here is a critique offered by Amy Rinard of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “What you see of Pabst Farms is ultra-planned and super-designed. Developers are proud of its Pabst Farms Long-Term Plan: upscale identity and conscious of the marketability of its high-end vibe. From the Pick ‘n Save store and the M&I bank to the Starbucks and the

•

1,500 Acres of Development

•

1,200 Residences: Single-Family Homes and Condos/Townhomes

•

600,000 – 900,000 square feet of Retail Space

•

5,000,000 square feet of Business, Office and Health Care

•

360 Acres of Open Space, Recreational Trails and Civic Use

new pizza place, all commercial buildings in the Pabst Farms retail center have the same design (2007).”

In addition to developments like Pabst Farms, Waukesha County’s status as ‘Wisconsin’s Lake Country’ adds development pressures that Jefferson County doesn’t have. Many of the lakes in Waukesha

Source: pabstfarms.com

County are used for recreational activities, and feature highly developed

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State shorelines including single family residences and some farmland perimeters. This desirable land amenity comes at a cost however. Since lakeside development began in the 1950s (and drastically increased in the 1980s), the use value of agricultural land in the county became far less than its market value, and, due to a lack of preservation controls at the local level, development patterns in the county rapidly consumed farmland for developing year-round lake homes and complimentary commercial services.

Figure 3, 4: The Commerce Centre (left) and Health and Wellness Center (right) of the new Pabst Farms development in Waukesha is evidence of the priority local government place on suburban style growth over farmland preservation.

Drivers of Preservation In an effort to combat farmland conversion, legislative action and incentive programs are now in place at both the state and county level to preserve agricultural land especially prime land. The following is a summary of two main preservation programs, one at the state and level and one at the county level.

Wisconsin Working Lands Initiative The goal of the Working Lands Initiative is to preserve agriculturally significant areas of land through the implementation of three components: expand and modernize the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Farmland Preservation Program, establish Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEAs), and develop the Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Grant Program (PACE) (Wisconsin DATCP, 2009). The initiative was renewed for the 2009-2011 biennial state budget. The Farmland Preservation Program offers state income tax credits to farmers for preserving farmland that is within a special zoning district, which is determined through a county-wide farmland preservation plan, and collects a flat fee per acre conversion when land within the special zoning district is re-zoned to another use. In 2009, new minimum zoning standards were created to increase

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State local flexibility and reduce land use conflicts, and the state drafted a model farmland preservation zoning text ordinance for local jurisdictions to adopt. Also, the program, which is growing in popularity around the state, was simplified by streamlining state oversight (DATCP, 2009).

The second component, establishing AEAs, seeks to maintain large areas of contiguous land primarily in agricultural use and reduce land use conflicts by designating areas that are eligible to receive special tax credits. This program, which is property owner volunteer-based, is currently in the pilot phase, and 12 AEAs that cover 200,000 acres are currently designated by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Production (DATCP, 2009). All 12 pilot AEAs will go into effect in January 2011.

The third component of the Working Lands Initiative is the PACE Program. This program provides state funding to purchase conservation easements through a direct grant to local entities such as local governments and non-profit organizations. This program is very similar to the purchase of development rights (PDR) programs, but it operates at the state level and is used in conjunction with the Farmland Preservation Program and must be applied to farmland highlighted in county farmland preservation plans (DATCP, 2009). The PACE program has preserved 5,000 acres of farmland in its first round of funding in 2009.

Waukesha County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program In a response to Waukesha County’s 24% decrease in cropland in 15 years and a growing concern over groundwater resource levels, the county instituted a transfer of development rights (TDR) program in 2005. A TDR program is a volunteer, incentive-based program that allows landowners to sell development rights from their land to a developer or other party who can use the rights to increase the density of development in another location (Center for Land Use Education, 2005). This mechanism is a way to permanently protect farmland in targeted areas such as areas of prime agriculture (‘sender zones’). In Waukesha County, increased density is permitted in designated areas that have municipal services. These targeted areas (‘receiver zones’) are regulated based on use and bulk of the development and proposed developments must be approved by the Town Planning Commission and the County Zoning Agency before it is approved (2005). The prime agricultural areas must be at least 20 acres of contiguous area and must be zoned as Agricultural Density – 10 (AD-10), which sets a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres (Zoning Ordinance, 2010).

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

The Waukesha TDR ordinance has been in place for over three years and information about the program is readily available, but evidence of quantifiable progress isn’t easy to find, which may be due to the lack of progress with this program. The Waukesha County Comprehensive Development Plan, created in 2009, barely mentions the TDR program (Chapter 7, page 44), and the plan’s land use in 2035 map (see Appendix, Figure 6) features very little prime agricultural land (2.8% of total land area) and some “rural density and other agricultural land” (11.9% of total land area) (Waukesha County, 2005). All together that is 14.5% of the total land (556 square miles) in the county. In 2005, that number was 28%. Given the difficulty in finding results of the TDR program and the dearth of information about TDR in the county’s comprehensive plan, it seems that the TDR program isn’t a significant program in the county.

Conclusion Today, the challenges to preserve farmland are fleeting at best in Waukesha County due to its focus on economic development and population growth structured by suburban regulatory models. The pressures of developments like Pabst Farms and the high demand of lakefront living are at the forefront of suburban pressures to convert farmland. While the TDR program is in place, it doesn’t seem to be working very effectively, and the comprehensive plan doesn’t emphasize farmland preservation over competing interests such as job growth, housing expansion, and transportation infrastructure improvements. Jefferson County seems to be much better off in terms of preserving its agricultural land as it has far less suburban development pressure, and a certain amount of pride in its agricultural character (Bollman, 2009). However, it too, has a lack of regulatory controls and preservation efforts to prohibit farmland conversion when new developments do occur. The state programs are promising and have potential to guide change. However, the programs are in the early stages of implementation and they cost money at a time when the state is facing a biennial budget deficit of $3.1 billion for the 2011-2013 budget years (Stein, 2010). Future leadership at the state and local level will need to value farmland in order to save it in both counties.

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

Works Cited Bollman, J. (2009). Jefferson County – Overview of Agriculture. UW-Extension Jefferson County. Retrieved online October 19, 2010 from www.jeffersoncountywi.com Barrett, R. (2009, Jan 21). Falling Milk Prices Hurt Dairy Farms. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 20,2010 from www.jsonline.com Center for Land Use Education. (2005). Planning Implementation Tools Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Land Center. Retrieved online October 19, 2010 from www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/ Farming on the Fringe. (2010). American Farmland Trust. Retrieved October 14, 2010 from www.farmland.org Marsh, W. (2005). Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications (4th ed.). New York: Wiley and Sons. National Resource Conservation Services (NRCS). (2007). 2007 NRI: Changes in Land Cover/Use – Agricultural Land. Retrieved online October 14, 2010, from www.farmlandinfo.org Rinard, A. (2007, Oct 6). Is Pabst Farms a City Unto Itself? Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from www.jsonline.com Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). (2005). A Regional Land Use Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2035. Retrieved online October 14, 2010, from www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/LandUse.htm State Agricultural Profile – Wisconsin. (2010). American Farmland Trust. Retrieved online October 21, 2010, from www. farmland.org/resources/profiles/state Stein, J. (2010, Oct 1). Johnson Speaks in Favor of Farm Subsidies. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from www.jsonline.com Stein, J. (2010, Sept 22). Projections of State Budget Deficit Grow. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved online October 21, 2010 from www.jsonline.com U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Chap. 2. Retrieved online October 8, 2010, from www.agcensus.usda.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2002). U.S Summary and State and County Reports. Retrieved online October 8, 2010, from www.agcensus.usda.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1992). Census of Agriculture: State and County Highlights. Retrieved online October 18, 2010, from www.agcensus.usda.gov

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Detailed tables. Retrieved online October 14, 2010, from www.factfinder.census.gov U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990). Census 1990 Summary Tape File 1 (STF 1) 100-Percent Data. Detailed tables. Retreived online October 14, 2010, from www.factfinder.census.gov U.S. Bureau of the Census (2009). American Community Survey, 1-year Estimates. Detailed tables. Retrieved online October 14, 2010, from www.factfinder.census.gov Waukesha County. (2005). A Comprehensive Development Plan for Waukesha County. Chapters 2, 3, 7. Retrieved online October 14, 2010, from www.waukeshacounty.gov. Wisconsin Department of Agrictulture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP). (2010). Working Lands Program Information. Retrieved online October 19, 2010 from http://datcp.state.wi.us/workinglands

Image Credits:

Figure 1: NCRS Figure 2: State of Wisconsin with Counties, U.S. Department of Agriculture Figure 3: Commerce Center at Pabst Farms, www.pabstfarms.com Figure 4: Health and Wellness Campus at Pabst Farms, www.pabstfarms.com Figure 5: Jefferson County, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Figure 6: Waukesha County, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Figure 7: Phsiographic Map of Waukesha County, Waukesha County Figure 8: Groundwater Divide Location Map, Waukesha County Figure 9: Recommended Land Use in Waukesha County in 2035, Waukesha County

Cover image: Woelfel Family Farm, Town of New Berlin, Waukesha County, Wisconsin source: bing.com/maps

Appendix Figures 4 - 8

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Figure 4: Map of Jefferson County, Wisconsin

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Figure 5: Map of Waukesha County, Wisconsin

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Figure 6: Map of Topographic and Physicographic Features, Waukesha County, Wisconsin

K EE

ER RIV

OCONOM

45 £ ¤

RIV

MO NO OC O

LISBON

NORTH

OCON

O C RIV

OW M

MERTON

MENOMONEE

LANNON

ON D RT ON ME LP MIL

LAKE

MENOMONEE FALLS

74 Æ %

PARK POND

LAKE

£ ¤

% Æ

175

ASHIPPUN

LAKE KEESUS

67 Æ %

T. 8 N.

% Æ

100

N NO

MILL POND

WILLOW

83 Æ %

OCONOMOWOC

% Æ

145

CHANNEL

N LA

MONTEREY

R. 20 E. NOR-X-WAY NO

CREEK

RIVER

FIVE

MILLPOND

CO.

RIVER

LAKE

MONCHES

MASON

ASHIPPU N

WASHINGTON

R. 19 E.

R. 18 E.

BA R

CO. LITTLE OWOC RIV ER

DODGE

R. 17 E. T. 8 N.

LAC LA BELLE SUSSEX

% Æ

164

BEAVER LAKE

OKAUCHEE

CRYSTAL

BELLE

LAKE

UPPER

OCONOMOWOC

RIV

GRASS LAKE

TIERNEY LAKE

RC EB

FOREST LAKE

FLORENCE LAKE

74 Æ %

16 Æ %

IVE

OCONOMOWOC LAKE

HARTLAND

W BR COC

O CREEK

% Æ

T. 7 N.

BUTLER

190

RIV

BARK

Nashotah

BUTLER

16 Æ %

SU SS

LAKE

OCONOMOWOC

CHENEQUA PINE LAKE

N O M OW O O CO FOWLER LAKE

MILWAUKEE

GARVIN

LAKE

O OC

T. 7 N.

MERTON

16 Æ %

CORNELL LAKE

MOOSE LAKE

DITCH

SE NOW CR E

LAKE

LAC

LILL YC

TAMARACK

PEWAUKEE

UPPER

K LA

DOUSMAN RIV FO X

S BR

§ ¦ ¨

94 UNDERWOOD CREEK

AT O

59 Æ %

% Æ

164 PO

T. 6 N. CR

EE K

CO.

BL E

59 Æ %

IT E

NEW BERLIN

GENESEE EE K

67 Æ %

% Æ

WAUKESHA

164

UPPER KELLY

§ ¦ ¨

PE B

BL E

REDWING

CREEK

SPRI

NORTH PRAIRIE

59 Æ %

HALES CORNERS CREEK

CR OTTAWA LAKE

MILL R

CREEK

LE VIL D N ES YL PO SA ILL M

GENESEE

PRETTY LAKE

REAGONS LAKE

JEFFERSON

FRAME PARK CREEK

LAKE

LARKIN LAKE

OTTAWA

18 £ ¤

DEER CRE EK

% Æ

MILWAUKEE

BR OO K

CO.

NG NO

T IO

LAKE

L WA

HUNTERS

CREEK POND

SECTION

WAUKESHA

ELM GROVE

164

PE B

ER PP

C SE DIT

18 £ ¤

WALES

U SC

LAKE

SCUPPERNONG

SCHOOL

BROOKFIELD

18 £ ¤

DUTCHMANS

SCHOOL

EE K

Drumlins OK BR O

Dousman SPRING LAKE

T. 6 N.

SA R

BA R

WATERVILLE LAKE

DELAFIELD

HENRIETTA LAKE

UTICA LAKE

RIVER

BARK

LAKE

# 0

18 £ ¤

ETTER

BRAN DY

LAKE

OW B

SPAHN LAKE

RIV

CREEK

§ ¦ ¨

LAKE

BUTH LAKE

GOLDEN

ZION

CREEK

BOWRON

AUDLEY

LAKE

DELAFIELD

NEMAHBIN LAKE

GENESEE LAKE

83 Æ %

KE R

PO ND

RE E

SYBIL

MILL

BROOKFIELD

PEWAUKEE

C OD

LOWER

EB EC

16 Æ %

DUCK LAKE

LAKE

AP PL

LOWER

ME AD

DE R

EGG LAKE

GENESEE

E AUKE

CROOKED LAKE

MIDDLE LAURA LAKE

PEW

NEMAHBIN LAKE

UPPER GENESEE LAKE

SUMMIT K

NAGAWICKA

UPPER

67 Æ %

RIV

LAKE

E AUKE

LAKE PEW

T LE BAT

DITCH

LAKE NASHOTAH

§ ¦ ¨

% Æ

190

NASHOTAH

LOWER

SILVER LAKE

Drumlins

LAKE LOWER KELLY

LINIE

LAKE

LAC

WILLOW

SPRINGS

RIV

BEAVER DAM LAKE

LAKE

MCKEWEAN

LITTLE

SPRINGS M

R SP

ill

CREEK

ING

SPRING LAKE

o Bro

MUSKEGO

CREE

§ ¦ ¨

RIV

FO X

MUSKEGO BASS

O EG

83 Æ %

PARADISE SPRINGS CREEK

164

NG NO

ER PP

% Æ

VERNON

MUKWONAGO

E HO ES K RS HO BR OO

U SC

TESS CORNERS CREEK

CREEK

EAGLE

LAKE

BIG BEND

BAY CR

BIG

BIG BEND

MUSKEGO

POND

RIPPLE

59 Æ %

EAGLE JERI C HO

CREEK MUKWONAGO

LOWER

PHANTOM

RIV ER

NORRIS

LAKE

FOUNDATION POND

UPPER BE U

LA H

WOOD LAKE

PHANTOM LAKE

E TL

FO X

HOGAN LAKE K LA

RAINBOW SPRINGS LAKE

BR OO K

% Æ 36

ROXY POND

MUKWONAGO EAGLE SPRING LAKE

67 Æ %

45 £ ¤

MUKWONAGO

PARK POND

BROWN LAKE

T. 5 N.

LAKE

RIVER

KR U

EG ER

LAKE DENOON

T. 5 N.

ARTESIAN BROOK

R. 20 E.

R. 17 E.

WALWORTH

CO.

R. 18 E.

R. 19 E.

RACINE

CO.

Legend

Elevation (In Feet) 1200 - 1232

Physiography

1100 - 1200

Rolling Ground Moraine

1000 - 1100

Nearly Level Outwash

900 - 1000

Kettle Moraine

800 - 900

700-800

# 0

³ 1

2 Miles

<700 0

Lapham Peak

4,000 8,000 12,00016,000 Feet

Source: Waukesha County

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Figure 7: Impact of Pumping on Deep Sandstone Aquifer, Wisconsin

Figure III-3 IMPACTS OF PUMPING ON THE DEEP SANDSTONE AQUIFER

195,810 1,521,969 1,173,783 84,956

2,830,496 937,346 68,241 488,332 575,087 78,231 3,911,258 347,581

$5,259,670,000 $77,395

67,959 15,463,551 10,948,614 8,843,649

222,522 1,336,626 738,339 76,113

2,877,971 717,549 150,469 314,722 990,531 85,304 3,554,932 270,130

$5,579,861,000 $85,056.00

65,602 14,900,205 10,353,300 8,625,011

269820 1249309 436814 89575

3,250,847 732,636 280,464 166,794 1,363,124 NA NA NA

$8,967,358,000 $114,288.00

38% Ͳ18% Ͳ63% 5%

15% Ͳ22% 311% Ͳ66% 137%

70% 48%

15% Ͳ2% Ͳ8% 0%

2007 Percent Change

78,463 15,190,804 10,116,279 8,884,628

State of Wisconsin 1997

1,955 19,801 21,635 1,362

70,107 10,134 NA 5,424 22,999 1,033 61,174 5,355

$106,270 $83,023

1,280 232,591 189,251 158,618

1992

2084544

5,363,675

2000

2272274

5,654,774

2009

1990 74,021

2000

Jefferson

30,603

80,833

2009

16% 122 133 145

25% 24,019 28,205

16% 67,783

(1990 Ͳ 2009)

Percent Change

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, (1990, 2000 Decinnial Census) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

75 82 86

1822118

Total Households

Density (people /sq. mi.)

4891769

Total Population

1990

Wisconsin

360,767

2000

$44,005,000 $63,684.00

2009

35% Ͳ26% Ͳ66% Ͳ4%

19% 548 649 689

151,203

26%

43%

26%

(1990 Ͳ 2009)

Percent Change

1,050 7,290 4,664 1,005

940 4,573 1,466 959

31,508 3,062 NA 1,648 21,699 10 15,146 2,726

$42,099,000 $66,823.00

1,011 2,456 873 587

28,520 1,370 2,463 430 16,688 NA NA NA

$45,243,000 $67,027.00

Ͳ4% Ͳ66% Ͳ81% Ͳ42%

Ͳ84% 46%

Ͳ26% Ͳ68%

3% 5%

Ͳ2% Ͳ24% Ͳ28% Ͳ24%

Waukesha County 1997 2007 Percent Change

691 630 675 114184 105,608 86,606 96441 88,063 69,445 82593 77,514 62,435

1992

38322 4273 NA Ͳ77% 2620 76% 11,464 withheld 20488 3850

21% Ͳ17%

97% 76%

383,154

Waukesha

27% 105,990 135,229

19% 304,715

(1990 Ͳ 2009)

Percent Change

2,634 14,669 7,435 1,304

84,650 8,378 5,185 1,272 40,458 NA NA NA

$209,294.00 $145,951.00

12% 5% 0% 8%

2007 Percent Change

1,434 244,238 190,189 172,000

1990

2,208 16,087 13,199 999

71,015 9,549 NA 3,049 43,038 1,750 39,379 4,302

$131,266,000 $105,860.00

1,240 242,301 199,635 176,700

Jefferson County 1997

Table 3: Population and Household Change for State of Wisconsin, Jefferson and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin (1997, 2007)

Livestock and Poultry (number) Beef Cows Milk Cows Hogs and Pigs Sheep and Lambs

Selected Crops Harvested (acres) Corn for grain Corn for silage Wheat Oats Soybeans Potatoes Hay Vegetables

Total value of farm sales (dollars) Value of farm sales per acre

Number of Farms Land in Farms (acres) Total Cropland Harvested

1992

Table 2: Agricultural Census Comparison Between State of Wisconsin, and Jefferson and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin (1992, 1997, 2007)

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

Tables 2 and 3

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State Figure 8: Map of Recommended Land Use in Waukesha County (2035), Wisconsin

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNTY

S OU TH E R N R A IL R OA D WIS C ON SIN A N 2D

IV R3

BA 6

ASHIP PUN

OCONOMO WOC

LAKE KEESUS

164

RIV

U N IO N P A C IFI C R A IL R OA D

15 ASHIPP UN

NORTH

TOWN OF MERTON

MAPLETON LA KE

Re c

re a ti

on T ra

VILLAGE OF LANNON

21 CORNELL

YY MD

LA KE

VILLAGE OF SUSSEX

LA BEAVER

OKAUCHEE

BELLE

LAKE

F OW L ER

KC 34

GRAS S

CITY OF MILW.

VILLAGE OF CHENEQUA 34

PINE

GA RVI N

LAKE

U N ION P A C IFIC R A ILR OA D

LA KE

MOOS E

LA KE

VILLAGE OF

WMENOMONEE FALLS

VILLAGE OF MERTON

LA KE

TAM ARACK

LAC

Ice

LAKE

TOWN OF LISBON

glin

TOWN OF OCONOMOWOC

17 B u

LA KE

VILLAGE OF LAC LA BELLE

100 OM

RIV ER 7

C A N A D I A N N AT I O N A L R A ILR

O AD

K 1

145

RIVER

Q ER

DODGE DODGE COUNTY COUNTY

VILLAGE OF BUTLER

FLORENCE LA KE

FORES T

VILLAGE OF HARTLAND

LA KE

OCONOMOWOC 3

LAKE

IL SY S

TOWN OF BROOKFIELD

190 KE

BA RK

VILLAGE OF NASHOTAH

UPP ER

LA KE

LOWER

LAKE

NAS HOTAH

LA KE

PEWAUKEE

U KE PE WA

UPP ER

U KE PE WA

CITY OF 17 DELAFIELD

8 VILLAGE OF

ICK

W GA NA

SILVER

LAKE

NAS HOTAH

T EM

VILLAGE OF OCONOMOWOC LAKE

C P R AIL S YS TE

CITY OF PEWAUKEE

LA KE

DR crea tion T rail L ake C ou ntry R e

LA KE LA KE

BA R

LR AI N

N SI

A D IAN N A T IO N

N A

H ER

AIL N R

BAY

CITY OF NEW BERLIN

TOWN OF GENESEE

REA GONS

TOWN OF OTTAWA

LA KE

CA N

IS CO

LA RKI N

R A IL R O

D 16

SCHOOL SECTION LA KE

LA KE

W IS C ON S IN C E NT RA L LI M I TE D R A I LRO A D

C H I C AG

HUNTE RS

VILLAGE OF WALES

VILLAGE OF DOUSMAN

A C IFIC R A IL R OA D5 6 U N ION P

LA 2 KE

New Berlin Recreation Trail

DUTCHMAN

18 LA KE

S TE

LA KE

RIVER

TOWN OF BROOKFIELD

UTI CA

BARK

94 33

POND

SPRING

WATERVI LLE

CITY OF WAUKESHA 33

83 31

Sta te T ra il G la cial D rum lin

VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE

RIV

C AN

RIV

LAKE

GOLDEN

CITY OF BROOKFIELD

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY COUNTY

FO X

LA KE

NN AT IO

LA KE LOWER

GE NE SEE

LA KE

NEM AHB IN

BOWRON

MIDDLE GE NE SEE

TOWN OF DELAFIELD

DUCK

24 LOWER

LA KE

RIV

CROOK ED

LA KE

TOWN OF SUMMIT 22

15 RA

L R A IL R OA D

UPP ER GE NE SEE

NEM AHB IN

MILWAUKEE MILWAUKEE COUNTY COUNTY

WE S T E O AN D N OR TH

CITY OF OCONOMOWOC 5

RIV

LA KE LA

LA KE

SA YL ES

PRE TTY

V L

M IL

TOWN OF WAUKESHA

L PO N D

LA KE

U VILLAGE OF NORTH PRAIRIE 34

LA KE

ZZ OTTAWA

164 HH

67 CI

WI LLOW

SPRINGS

MUSKEGO

59 SO

U TH

SPRING LAKE

N CA

OO CITY OF MUSKEGO

A ge

TOWN OF VERNON

VILLAGE OF BIG BEND 24

Ic e 19

BASS

TOWN OF MUKWONAGO

TOWN OF EAGLE

Tr ai l

FO X

18 E R P

A IL

RIV

83 15

LAKE

S IN N CO W

N NG NO

LITTLE

RIV

LA KE

BIG

MUSKEGO

Y LAKE

NN VILLAGE OF EAGLE

S Z 30

VILLAGE OF MUKWONAGO 26

LOWER

M UK

N AG

LA KE

EAGLE SPRING 32

LAKE

PHA NTOM

LA KE

36 34

LA KE

RIV ER

LA KE

WOOD

RAI NB OW SPRINGS

DENOON

FO X

UPP ER

C AN

PHA NTOM

RIV ER

LA KE

RACINE RACINE COUNTY COUNTY

WALWORTH WALWORTH COUNTY COUNTY

Recommended Land Use Plan For Waukesha County - 2035

Land Use Plan Categories High Density Residential

Rural Density and Other Agricultural Land*

Governmental & Institutional

(Less than 6,000 square feet of area per dwelling unit)

(5.0 to 34.9 acres of area per dwelling unit or equivalent density)

Commercial and Office Park

Medium Density Residential

Prime Agricultural

(6,000-19,999 square feet of area per dwelling unit)

Low Density Residential (20,000 square feet to 1.4 acres of area per dwelling unit)

Suburban I Density Residential

(35 acres of area per dwelling unit or greater)

Mixed Use Industrial

1 inch = 3 miles

Transportation, Communication & Utilities

Other Open Lands to be Preserved

Highway and Railway Rights of Way

Recreational

Landfill

Primary Environmental Corridor

Extractive

(1.5 to 2.9 acres of area per dwelling unit)

Secondary Environmental Corridor

Suburban II Density Residential

Isolated Natural Resource Area

Adopted Wisconsin Department Of Natural Resources Project Boundary

(3.0 to 4.9 acres of area per dwelling unit)

Surface Water

Major Recreational Trails

* Refer to Town of Ottawa and Town of Mukwonago Land Use Plans, and Town of Delafield Land Use Plan Unit Determination for permissible rural densities.

Miles 5

Environmental Corridor information from SEWRPC Environmental Corridor Inventory 2000 Prepared By The Waukesha County Department Of Parks And Land Use January 23, 2009.