Citizens attending the October meeting of the Lovell Town Council Tuesday night expressed their disagreement with the Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality decision to not grant a setback waiver requested by the Town of Lovell and, thus, put an end to the town’s planned fall open burning period.
About a dozen people attended the meeting and presented petitions signed by 262 town residents calling on the town to again petition the DEQ Air Quality Division for a setback waiver and allow enough time for trees in town to lose their leaves.
The town was forced to cancel the fall open burning period after the DEQ denied the town’s request for a setback waiver, which would have allowed residents to burn within 500 feet of a structure, a practice prohibited by DEQ regulations.
Lovell has, for many years, requested semiannual waivers that will allow people to burn for a limited period of time, and the DEQ has always granted the waivers until this fall, when a pair of complaints presented last spring led to the DEQ denying the waiver for the fall burning period.
“The complaints of a few people should not override the desires of the majority of the people in the community,” said spokesman Jim Szlemko.
Szlemko said he doesn’t hear any complaints about toxic fumes from the mosquito fogger, diesel engines or charcoal barbecues, but he said smoke from organic material like grass and leaves is not toxic.
“Burning is good for the soil and kills weed seeds and insect eggs,” Szlemko said. “If the town is not allowed to have open burning by the state, it should provide for the removal of leaves to keep the town neat and clean. Many people do not have the ability to haul leaves to the landfill and it can be quite costly.”
He noted that some other county landfills do not charge for organic material, adding, “and I don’t think ours should, either.”
Szlemko asked the town to send copies of the citizen signatures with a new request to the DEQ for a setback waiver, and Aletha Durtsche added that, if the town needs more signatures, many more people are willing to sign the petition.
“If they take away open burning, where does it stop?” Jason Zeller asked. “It’s like the Pledge of Allegiance. I agree if the majority of people don’t want it, but they should go with the majority.”
Asked if the town can re-apply for a waiver, Lovell Town Administrator Bart Grant said he was told by DEQ officials that the complainants would have to be satisfied that the town is enacting more stringent conditions for burning.
“That’s what chapped me,” Councilman Scott Allred said. “If we appease a couple of people in the community, then we can do what needs to be done. That rubs me the wrong way.”
Grant noted that only Air Quality Division Manager David Finley in Cheyenne can grant setback waivers, but there are no rules for him to follow. Waivers are granted at his own discretion, Grant said.
Szlemko asked if there are any rules governing “controlled burning” in a 55-gallon drum or a fire pit. Grant said he is not familiar enough with DEQ regulations to answer that question, and Town Attorney Sandra Kitchen said that would be a question to direct to the DEQ.
Roger Wilkerson said he worries about a “slippery slope” when it comes to fire pits and the like, noting that if the DEQ denies fire pits, fireplaces could be next.
Morrison said the town would clarify whether “controlled burning” in drums or fire pits is allowed, and Szlemko noted that some towns allow residents to rake leaves into the street and they are then removed by a large vacuum truck. He said it’s something for the town to look into in the future if the DEQ continues to deny setback waivers.

Chief of Police Nick Lewis came before the council to answer questions about his proposal to enact an ordinance banning texting while driving and/or talking on cell phones while driving.
Allred said the council agrees with the texting ban but said some members of the council have wondered if texting can be covered by the town’s existing careless driving ordinance, along with other practices that could distract a driver.
Lewis said the careless driving ordinance is pretty broad, and attorney Kitchen agreed. The chief said the careless driving ordinance may not be specific enough when it comes to texting.
“Some people are simply not going to text if it’s against the law, and that’s a good thing,” Lewis said.
“I think it’s dangerous, too, but how do you prove it?” Councilman Bruce Wolsey asked.
“How do you enforce other laws?” Lewis noted. “You are going to see some who cross a lane of traffic tell you ‘I was texting,’ but you’re not going to catch everybody.”
Lewis said it’s partly a matter of public awareness. While texting might be covered by the careless driving ordinance, a specific prohibition would allow the town to post signs to make people aware of the ordinance.
“I agree with Nick on the need for public awareness, and I know of a few accidents where the rumor was that the driver was texting, but rather than pass another ordinance, what if we say we’ll enforce the prohibition on careless driving?” Councilman Brian Dickson asked.
Kitchen said what the chief is trying to do is send a strong message of deterrence.
“I really don’t have a dog in this fight,” Lewis said. “It’s up to you folks. If there’s a fatality (caused by texting), you’d be addressing it. I just want to make sure you address it and consider it. My obligation is to bring it to you.”
Wolsey asked Kitchen if a texting ordinance would be enforceable, and she said it would be enforceable if there is enough evidence, like any other case.
Allred said he would like to discuss a possible ordinance at a work meeting, and Lewis asked if the town would receive more public input if an actual ordinance was drafted.
“I just don’t want to sacrifice somebody. That’s my concern,” the chief said.
Allred again said he would like to “discuss it among ourselves” at a work meeting.