Changes planned in gravel-pit laws

Bills would affect how county regulates new pits

Two bills that could affect Flathead County's ability to regulate new gravel pits are scheduled for legislative hearings this week.

House Bill 557, which comes before the House Natural Resources Committee for a hearing on Wednesday, would allow gravel pits, asphalt and concrete plants to be prohibited only in areas that are zoned and taxed as residential.

Senate Bill 398, which goes to the Senate Local Government Committee on Thursday, would require counties to estimate their 20-year need for gravel, concrete and asphalt - and to identify known sand and gravel deposits within any proposed zoning district - prior to zoning an area as residential.

Under current state law, local governments can prohibit or put reasonable conditions on gravel operations that are "located within a geographic area zoned as residential, as defined by the county commissioners."

That language, which was approved by the 2005 Legislature, was crafted specifically in response to a controversy here over JTL Group's Flathead River gravel pit.

The 2005 bill received widespread support from a variety of groups - including the Montana Contractors Association. However, the association thought it referred only to traditional "R" residential zones.

The Flathead County commissioners, by contrast, subsequently used the language to declare that, for the purposes of regulating gravel pits, any zoning district is a residential district as long as it allows homes as a permitted use.

That decision dramatically expanded the number of areas where new gravel pits could be prohibited - and infuriated the contractors.

To some degree, HB 557 and SB 398 are reactions to this expanded view of what qualifies as a residential district.

HB 557 "was crafted specifically in response to the Flathead situation, although agricultural landowners are seeing that similar situations could arise in other parts of Montana. [SB 398] was drafted in response to growth areas across Montana," said Gail Abercrombie, a representative of the contractors association, which supports both bills.

It's unclear how the House bill would affect areas such as the West Valley, which is Ground Zero for new gravel operations in the Flathead.

A 2006 court ruling upheld the county's determination that the district qualifies as "a geographic area zoned as residential," but many of the individual parcels in the district are taxed as agricultural or timberland.

Abercrombie said the intent is to prevent the county from prohibiting gravel mines on property that's taxed as something other than residential. However, the bill language refers to "geographic area," rather than "property," which leaves open the possibility that mines could be prohibited on agricultural parcels that are surrounded by residential land.

"It definitely raises issues," Deputy County Attorney Jonathan Smith said. "I guess we'd have to figure out what's meant by 'geographic area.'"

To date, one West Valley gravel pit has been prohibited as a result of the county's broad residential definition. The current statutory language has also been used to deny some asphalt and concrete processing operations.

Unlike HB 557, SB 398 wouldn't restrict local governments from prohibiting gravel pits. Instead, it simply requires them to look at what gravel resources are available before they zone an area as residential.

"It's basically a planning issue," Abercrombie said. "It says, 'Look before you leap.'"

Local gravel operators previously have expressed frustration with efforts to limit the development of new mines, just as demand is soaring. They have suggested that blindly designating areas as residential, without knowing what impact that has on future gravel availability, could have a long-term negative effect on the county's economy.

"Transportation of gravel gets to be expensive," Abercrombie said. "It needs to be located near where the [construction] activity is taking place."

Flathead County Planning Director Jeff Harris said understanding where gravel is available and determining how much will be needed in the future makes perfect sense from a planning standpoint. However, he didn't think that analysis should be tied to a zoning decision.

HB 557 was sponsored by Rep. Ralph Heinert, R-Libby. SB 398 was sponsored by Sen. Kelly Gebhardt, R-Roundup. The transmittal deadline for both bills is Feb. 28; if they haven't passed in their respective chambers by that time, the bills would die.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com