suburban pressure on farmland in the dairy state

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State: A Two County Comparison of Farmland Change and Preservation

Andrew BroderickOctober 21, 2010UP 502: Environmental PlanningProfessor Larissa Larsen

Suburban Pressure on Farmland in The Dairy State

2

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,

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

Figure 1: The number of acres converted from

agricultural land to developed land, 1982 to 2007.

Wisconsin is 14th in the nation.

State AcresTexas 2,869,600California 1,767,200Florida 1,550,700Arizona 925,700North Carolina 820,600Ohio 818,200Tennessee 791,000Pennsylvania 728,700Michigan 726,000Illinois 663,900Georgia 647,100Kentucky 618,000Colorado 605,200Wisconsin 520,500Indiana 503,100

Agricultural Land Converted to Developed Land

1982 to 2007


3

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

shades of blue.

DANE

GRANT

BAYFIELD

IOWA

ROCK

WOODJACKSON

PORTAGE

GREEN

BUFFALO WAUPACA BROWN

LAFAYETTE

OUTAGAMIE

WAUKESHA

WALWORTH

JEFFERSON

RACINE

KENOSHA

PRICE

CLARK

VILAS

POLK RUSK

ONEIDA

IRON

SAWYER

SAUK

DUNNMARATHON

DOUGLAS

FOREST

TAYLOR

MARINETTE(part)

DODGE

OCONTO

LINCOLNBARRON

ASHLAND(part)

MONROE JUNEAU

CHIPPEWA

ADAMS

VERNON

BURNETT

SHAWANO

LANGLADE

PIERCEDOOR(part)

COLUMBIA

ST. CROIX

WASHBURN

RICHLAND

FOND DU LAC

WAUSHARA

EAU CLAIRE

CRAWFORD

TREM

PEAL

EAU

MANITOWOC

WINNEBAGO

FLORENCE

LACROSSE

CALUMET

PEPIN

SHEB

OYGAN

MARQUETTE

WASHIN

GTON

KEWAU

NEE

GREENLAKE

MENOMINEE

OZAU

KEE

MILW

AUKE

E

DOOR(part)

ASHLAND(part)

MARINETTE(part)

MARINETTE(part)

0 50

Miles

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

Wisconsin State Boundary

County Boundary and NameNAME


4

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


5

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).

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.

State of Wisconsin Jefferson County Waukesha CountyPercent Change in Population (1990 2009)1 16% 19% 26%Percent Change in Cropland (1992 2007) (acres)2 2% 5% 24%

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


6

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

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

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

County are used for recreational activities, and feature highly developed

Pabst Farms Long-Term Plan:

• 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

Source: pabstfarms.com


7

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.

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 State’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

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.


8

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).


9

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.


10

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


11

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


13

Figure 4: Map of Jefferson County, Wisconsin


14

Figure 5: Map of Waukesha County, Wisconsin


15

FLORENCELAKE

LITTLE

PINE

SILVER

SAYLESVILLE

MILL POND

MILL POND

UTICA

LARKIN

SPRING LAKE

LA

RIVER

RIVER

RIVER

RIVER

RIVER

RIVERRI

VER

RIVER

RIVER

MONTEREY

RIVER

RIVER

EAGLESPRING

BELLE

WATERVILLE

MIDDLE

SECTION

GARVIN

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKELAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

FOWLERLAKE

MUKWONAGO

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKELAKE

LAKE

SPRING

ASHIPPUN

BAY

SPRINGS

SPRINGS

LAC

PRETTY

NEMAHBIN

UPPER

NEMAHBIN

BASS

BEAVER

CORNELL

FOREST

WILLOW

KEESUS

NAGAWICKA

BARKBARK

BARK

RAINBOW

FOX

FOX

FOX

TAMARACK

NASHOTAH

NASHOTAH

UPPER

UPPER

UPPER

HUNTERS

GENESEE

GENESEE

GENESEE

OTTAWA

OKAUCHEE

GOLDEN

SCHOOL

PEW

AU

KEEPEWAUKEE

NORTH

DUCK

DUTCHMANS

PHANTOM

PHANTOM

SCUPPERNONG

REAGONS

MERTON

LAKE

CROOKED

MUSKEGO

MUSKEGO

DENOON

LOWER

LOWER

LOWER

LOWER

MENOM

ONEE

MOOSE

GRASS

BOWRON

OCONOMOWOC

WOOD

ASHIPPUN

BARK

BIG

RIVER

OC

ON

OM

OW

OC

RIVER

ROSENOW CREEK

MAS

ON

CREEK

OC

ON

OM

OW

OC

RIV

ER

OCO

NOM

OW

OC RIVER

OCONOMOWOC RIVER

BATTLE

CREEK

CREEK

SCUPPERNONG

WALESCREEK

CREEKSPRINGS

SPRINGS

MCKEWEAN

PARADISE

CREEK

CR

EE

KJE

RIC

HO

SPRIN

G

CREEK

CREEK

SPR

ING

GENESEE CREEK

CREEK

CR

EEK

WH

ITE

BRAN

DY

BRO

OK

PEBB

LE

AUDLEY

CREEK CREEKZION

MEADOWBROOK CREEK

E BR COCO CREEK

W BR COCO CREEKLI

TTLE

LANNON

CREEK

CREE

K

WILLOW

SUSSEX

CREEK

SARA

TOG

A

MILL

PEBBLE

BROO

K

REDWING

CREEK

CREEK

Mill

Brook

HO

RSESH

OE

BRO

OK

KRUEGER

BROO

K

ARTESIAN BROOK

MU

SKEGO

CREEK

CORNERS CREEK

TESS

HALESCORNERSCREEK

POPLAR CREEK

DEER CREEK

UN

DER

WO

OD

CR

EEK

UNDERWOOD CREEK

S BR

DO

USM

AN

DIT

CH

DIT

CH

BUTLER

LILL

Y C

REE

K

NOR-X-WAYCHANNEL

SCHOOL SECTION

DITCH

BEAVERDAMLAKE

MILL PONDMENOMONEE

PARKPOND

BEULAH

LAKE

OUTLET

RIPPLE

CREEK

OC

ONOMOWOC RIVER

CRYSTAL

LAKE

FRAMEPARK

CREEK

TIERNEYLAKELAKE

OCONOMOWOCUPPER

MONCHES

MILLPOND

HENRIETTALAKE

LAKEBROWN

ROXYPOND

POND

PARK

MUKWONAGO

ETTER

LAKE

BIG BENDPOND

POND

FOUNDATIONNORRIS

LOWER

KELLYLAKE

UPPER

LAKEKELLY

SPAHNLAKELAKE

BUTH

APPLEBECKER

MILLPOND

LAKE

FIVE

LAURALAKE

LAKE

SYBIL

EGGLAKE

SCUPPERNONG

CREEKPOND

HOGANLAKE

LINIE LAC

VERNON

MUKWONAGO

BIG BEND

OTTAWA

OCONOMOWOC

GENESEE

OCONOMOWOC

SUMMIT

LISBONMERTON

EAGLE

MILWAUKEE

BUTLER

ELM GROVE

NEW BERLIN

LANNON

BROOKFIELD

MENOMONEE FALLS

BROOKFIELD

MUSKEGO

SUSSEX

WAUKESHA

WAUKESHA

PEWAUKEE

MUKWONAGO

DELAFIELD

HARTLAND

WALES

CHENEQUA

DELAFIELD

NORTH PRAIRIE

EAGLE

LAC LA BELLE

PEWAUKEE

Nashotah

Dousman

MERTON

Æ%59

£¤18

Æ%145

Æ%164

Æ%164

Æ%164

Æ%190

Æ%190

Æ%100

Æ%164

Æ%164

Æ%175

£¤45

§̈¦43

Æ%36

£¤41

Æ%67

£¤45

Æ%74

§̈¦94

Æ%16

Æ%16

Æ%67

Æ%67

Æ%67

Æ%59

Æ%59

Æ%59

Æ%59

Æ%83

Æ%83

Æ%16

Æ%16

§̈¦94

§̈¦43

§̈¦94

£¤18

£¤18

£¤18

Æ%83

Æ%59

Æ%74

#0

Drumlins

Drumlins

RACINE CO.WALWORTH CO.R. 17 E.

R. 18 E. R. 19 E.

R. 20 E.

JE

FF

ER

SO

N

C

O.

T. 5 N.

T. 6 N.

T. 7 N.

T. 8 N.

DODGE CO. WASHINGTON CO.

MIL

WA

UK

EE

C

O.

R. 17 E. R. 18 E. R. 19 E.R. 20 E.

T. 8 N.

T. 7 N.

T. 6 N.

T. 5 N.

³0 1 2

Miles

0 4,000 8,000 12,00016,000

Feet

Source: Waukesha County

Legend

Elevation (In Feet)

1200 - 1232

1100 - 1200

1000 - 1100

900 - 1000

800 - 900

700-800

<700

#0 Lapham Peak

Physiography

Rolling Ground Moraine

Nearly Level Outwash

Kettle Moraine

Figure 6: Map of Topographic and Physicographic Features, Waukesha County, Wisconsin


16

Figure III-3

IMPACTS OF PUMPING ON THE DEEP SANDSTONE AQUIFER

Figure 7: Impact of Pumping on Deep Sandstone Aquifer, Wisconsin


17

Table2:Ag

riculturalCen

susC

ompa

rison

Betw

eenStateof

Wisconsin,and

Jeffe

rson

andWau

keshaCo

untie

s,Wisconsin(199

2,19

97,200

7)

1992

1997

2007

PercentC

hang

e19

9219

9720

07PercentC

hang

e19

9219

9720

07PercentC

hang

e

Num

bero

fFarms

67,959

65,602

78,463

15%

1,28

01,24

01,43

412

%69

163

067

52%

Land

inFarm

s(acres)

15,463

,551

14,900

,205

15,190

,804

2%23

2,59

124

2,30

124

4,23

85%

1141

8410

5,60

886

,606

24%

TotalCropland

10,948

,614

10,353

,300

10,116

,279

8%18

9,25

119

9,63

519

0,18

90%

9644

188

,063

69,445

28%

Harvested

8,84

3,64

98,62

5,01

18,88

4,62

80%

158,61

817

6,70

017

2,00

08%

8259

377

,514

62,435

24%

Totalvalue

offarm

sales(dollars)

$5,259

,670

,000

$5,579

,861

,000

$8,967

,358

,000

70%

$106

,270

$131

,266

,000

$209

,294

.00

97%

$44,00

5,00

0$4

2,09

9,00

0$4

5,24

3,00

03%

Valueof

farm

salesp

eracre

$77,39

5$8

5,05

6.00

$114

,288

.00

48%

$83,02

3$1

05,860

.00

$145

,951

.00

76%

$63,68

4.00

$66,82

3.00

$67,02

7.00

5%

Selected

Crop

sHarvested

(acres)

Corn

forg

rain

2,83

0,49

62,87

7,97

13,25

0,84

715

%70

,107

71,015

84,650

21%

3832

231

,508

28,520

26%

Corn

forsilage

937,34

671

7,54

973

2,63

622

%10

,134

9,54

98,37

817

%42

733,06

21,37

068

%Whe

at68

,241

150,46

928

0,46

431

1%NA

NA

5,18

5NA

NA

2,46

3Oats

488,33

231

4,72

216

6,79

466

%5,42

43,04

91,27

277

%26

201,64

843

084

%Soybeans

575,08

799

0,53

11,36

3,12

413

7%22

,999

43,038

40,458

76%

11,464

21,699

16,688

46%

Potatoes

78,231

85,304

NA

1,03

31,75

0NA

with

held

10NA

Hay

3,91

1,25

83,55

4,93

2NA

61,174

39,379

NA

2048

815

,146

NA

Vegetables

347,58

127

0,13

0NA

5,35

54,30

2NA

3850

2,72

6NA

LivestockandPo

ultry(num

ber)

Beef

Cows

195,81

022

2,52

226

9820

38%

1,95

52,20

82,63

435

%1,05

094

01,01

14%

Milk

Cows

1,52

1,96

91,33

6,62

612

4930

918

%19

,801

16,087

14,669

26%

7,29

04,57

32,45

666

%Ho

gsandPigs

1,17

3,78

373

8,33

943

6814

63%

21,635

13,199

7,43

566

%4,66

41,46

687

381

%SheepandLambs

84,956

76,113

8957

55%

1,36

299

91,30

44%

1,00

595

958

742

%

Stateof

Wisconsin

Jeffe

rson

Coun

tyWau

keshaCo

unty

1990

2000

2009

Percent

Chan

ge(199

020

09)

1990

2000

2009

Percent

Chan

ge(199

020

09)

1990

2000

2009

Percent

Chan

ge(199

020

09)

TotalPop

ulation

4891

769

5,36

3,67

55,65

4,77

416

%67

,783

74,021

80,833

19%

304,71

536

0,76

738

3,15

426

%

TotalH

ouseho

lds

1822

118

2084

544

2272

274

25%

24,019

28,205

30,603

27%

105,99

013

5,22

915

1,20

343

%

Density

(peo

ple/sq.mi.)

7582

8616

%12

213

314

519

%54

864

968

926

%

Source:U

.S.Cen

susB

ureau,(199

0,20

00De

cinn

ialCen

sus)

Source:U

.S.Cen

susB

ureau,20

09Am

erican

Commun

itySurvey

Wisconsin

Jeffe

rson

Wau

kesha

Table3:Po

pulatio

nan

dHo

useh

oldCh

ange

forS

tate

ofWisconsin,Jefferson

andWau

keshaCo

untie

s,Wisconsin(199

7,20

07)

Tables 2 and 3


18

Surface Water

1 inch = 3 miles

4 2 153

4

3

5

1

2

2

514

2

3 1

45

1

6

3

5

5

2

45

5

1

1

2

3

4

4

3

9

3

6

2

8

9

4

1

6

6

1

5

8

2 1

34

5

1

6

1

6

2

2

3

6

3

3

2

7

6

4

6

4

7

5

9

8

9

2

9

9

8

8

9

6

7

8

8

6

8

9

1

4

8

4

9

9

9

4

8 9

25

3

6

9

9

5

7

4

3

6

8

8 9

5

6

6

8

7

8

1

9

8

3

8

2

7

7

4

7

3

7

53

12

7

5

7

7

7

7

6

2 1

77

21

15

25

20

31

13

24

22

30

21

32

20

29

15

29

33

28

10

21

17

12

34

17

19

20

11

27

23

29

29

32

31

17

20

22

34

18

16

24

14

28

12

28

10

14

16

14

17

25

22

11

33

17

25

2321

33

11

24

36

13

21

13

28

12

35

11

28

32

22

21

36

16

10

20

32

28

24

36

12

12

26

27

16

24

23

13

15

25

30

12

17

36

18

25

26

31 33

22

34

10

21

34

15

14

35

28

13

28

13

14

11

25

26

17

23

11

15

21

35

22

22

15

26

21

35

22

10

15

25

19

13

24

36

17

22

15

23

29

25

23

22

34

10

27

12

35

36

12

12

33

25

35

28

23

32

33

13

10

15

32

24

27

35

33

34

24

35

12

29

32

28

27

33

11

36

24

12

28

20

32

13

33

10

29

35

24

27

29

33

23

32

33

23

14

25

32

16

29

17

20

26

29

12

34

13

33

24

32

21

14

16

24

26

20

26

33

36

16

27

35

28

33

23

13

36

16

26

10

15

26

14

17

32

15

36

20

13

34

34

29

21

34

10

27

25

14

27

35

15

22

26

36

19

36

34

11

27

35

12

14

27

11

22

10

34

20

11

16

36

27

23

36

21

34

14

10

32

29

33

16

25

32

34

13

26

18

18

20

22

26

32

11

3532

15

17

15

21

30

24

16

18

36

27

2725

20

19

11

29

23

34

35

24

22

16

28

17

13

17

10

30

23

29

22

19

26

12

22

29

21

10

36

28

10

31

20

11

18

23

27

26

16

19

25

20

23

30

12

10

17

13

30

25

24

31

14

26

16

18

25

17

14

20

13

18

14

21

26

15

14

15

16

29

24

28

11

19

35

21

17

11

27

30

31

34

19

14

16

23

35

18

31

20

31

31

33

31

30

11

28

30

31

31

19

30

12

31

19

18

30

31

18

19

31

30

31

30

1919

30

18

30

18

19

18

30

19

18

19

18

CAN

AL

FLORENCELAKE

LITTLE

SILVER

SAYLESVIL L E

M IL L PO N D

MIL L PO

ND

LARKIN

SPRING LAKE

LA

RIVER

RIVER

RIV

ER

RIVER

RIVER

RIVE

R

RIVER

RIVER

EAGLESPRING

BELLE

WATERVILLE

MIDDLE

SECTION

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKELAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

LAKE

SPRING

BAY

SPRINGS

SPRINGS

LAC

PRETTY

NEM AHBIN

NEM AHBIN

BASS

BEAVER

WILLOW

KEESUS

BARK

BARK

BARK

RAINBOW

FOX

FOX

FOX

TAM ARACK

NASHOTAH

NASHOTAH

UPPER

UPPER

UPPER

UPPER

HUNTERS

GENESEE

GENESEE

GENESEE

OTTAWA

OKAUCHEE

GOLDEN

SCHOOL

PEW

AUKE

E

NORTH

DUCK

PHANTOM

PHANTOM

SCUPPERNONG

FO

WL

ER

M ERTO N

POND

CROOKED

MUSKEGO

MUSKEGO

DENOON

LOWER

LOWER

LOWER

LOWER

MOOSE

BOWRON

WOOD

ASHIPPUN

BARK

BIG

RIVER

OC

ON

OM

OW

OC

RIVER

GRASS

LAKELAKE

FOREST

LA KE

LAKE

LAK

ENAG

AWICK

A

LAKE

OCONOMOWOC

RIVE

R

UTICA

LAKE

LAKE

ASHIPPUN

LAKE

MAPLETON

LAKE

CORNELL

PINEGARVIN

LAKE

REAGONS

RIV ER

M UK WO N AG O

PEWAU KEE

LAKE

MEN

OMON

EE

RIV ER

DUTCHMAN

New Berlin Recreat ion Trail

18

1818

4536

67

16

83

83

164

145

59

59

59

83

164

74

67

16

100

190

67

16

E

FT

Q

SS

L

G

EF

SR

ES

O

Y

C

P

Z

Z

K

Y

R

KE

D

F

XX

N

ZZ

C

M

L

BB

G

KC

U

KF

W

JK

D

ES

Y

P

X

EEOO

TT

Y

V

DR

Q

NN

DE

YY

VV

I

CW

B

I

JJ

K

MD

K

HH

VV

CI

D

S

LO

T

E

J

I

DR

Z

ZC

43

94

94

94

43

Recommended Land Use Plan For Waukesha County - 2035Recommended Land Use Plan For Waukesha County - 2035

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

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

Land Use Plan Categories

Medium Density Residential

Low Density Residential

Suburban I Density Residential

Suburban II Density Residential

Other Open Lands to be Preserved

Prime Agricultural

Primary Environmental Corridor

Secondary Environmental Corridor

Isolated Natural Resource Area

Transportation, Communication & Utilities

Extractive

Industrial

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

High Density Residential

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

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

(1.5 to 2.9 acres ofarea per dwelling unit)

(3.0 to 4.9 acres ofarea per dwelling unit)

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

(35 acres of area perdwelling unit or greater)

Commercial and Office Park

Governmental & Institutional

Landfill

Mixed Use

Recreational

Adopted Wisconsin Department OfNatural Resources Project Boundary

DODGE COUNTYDODGE COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTYWASHINGTON COUNTY

WALWORTH COUNTYWALWORTH COUNTYRACINE COUNTYRACINE COUNTY

MIL

WA

UK

EE

CO

UN

TY

MIL

WA

UK

EE

CO

UN

TY

JE

FF

ER

SO

N C

OU

NT

YJE

FF

ER

SO

N C

OU

NT

Y

CITY OF MUSKEGO

CITY OF NEW BERLIN

CITY OF BROOKFIELD

VILLAGE OF MENOMONEE FALLS

VILLAGE OF LANNON

VILLAGEOF

BUTLER

CITYOF

MILW.

VILLAGE OF SUSSEX

VILLAGE OF MERTON

VILLAGE OFCHENEQUA

VILLAGE OF NASHOTAH

VILLAGE OFHARTLAND

CITY OFDELAFIELD

VILLAGE OFOCONOMOWOC LAKE

CITY OFOCONOMOWOC

VILLAGEOF LAC

LA BELLE

VILLAGE OF

DOUSMAN

VILLAGE OF

WALES

VILLAGE OF NORTH PRAIRIE

CITY OFWAUKESHA

VILLAGE OFPEWAUKEE

VILLAGE OF BIG BEND

VILLAGE OFMUKWONAGO

VILLAGE OF EAGLE

TOWN OF EAGLETOWN OF MUKWONAGO TOWN OF VERNON

TOWN OF WAUKESHA

TOWN OF GENESEE

TOWN OF OTTAWA

TOWN OF SUMMITTOWN OF DELAFIELD

CITY OF PEWAUKEE

TOWN OF LISBON

TOWN OF MERTONTOWN OF OCONOMOWOC

VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE

TOWN OF BROOKFIELD

TOWN OF BROOKFIELD

WIS

CO

NS

IN A

ND

SO

UTH

ER

N R

AIL

RO

AD

WIS

CO

N

SIN

AN

D S

OU TH ER N R AIL ROA D

WIS

CO

NS

IN C

EN

TR

AL

LIM

ITE

D R

AIL

RO

AD

CA

NA

DIA

N N

AT

ION

AL R

AI L

RO

A

D

UNION P A CIFIC RA ILROA D

CHICAGO A

ND

NO

RT

HW

ES

TE

RN RA IL RO

AD

CA

NA

DIA

N N

ATIO

NA

L R

AIL

RO

AD

CP RAIL S YS TE M

C P RAIL SY

STEM

CP

R

AI L

SY

ST E

M

UNION P A CIFIC RA ILR OA D

WIS CON SIN A ND S OUTHE RN RA ILROA D

UP R

.R.

CA

NA

DIA

N N

AT

ION

AL R

AIL

RO

AD

U NION P A CIFIC RA ILROA D

C P RA IL SYS TEM

CAN

AD

IAN

NAT

ION

AL R

AI L

RO

AD

B ugl ine Rec rea tion Tra il

G la cial D rum lin Sta te Tra il

L ake Cou ntry R ecrea tion Trail

* 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.

Rural Density and

Other Agricultural Land*

Highway and Railway Rights of Way

Major Recreational Trails

Ice

Ag

e T

rai l

I ce A

g e T

rai l

Figure 8: Map of Recommended Land Use in Waukesha County (2035), Wisconsin

suburban pressure on farmland in the dairy state

Documents