Hearing on gravel-pit bill draws crowd
Backers, opponents sound off on HB 557
HELENA - It was instigated by a Flathead County gravel-pit controversy, but House Bill 557 attracted statewide attention Wednesday in a committee hearing.
The hearing before the Senate Natural Resources Committee attracted more than 50 people, most of them from the Flathead Valley. But it also brought in testimony from other growth counties that potentially would be affected by the bill, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Heinert, R-Libby.
The bill was prompted by a recent Flathead County Commission decision that defines as residential any zoning district in the county that allows homes - specifically for regulating gravel pits.
Heinert's bill aims to counter that zoning designation by requiring any area considered to be a residential zone to be assigned a residential tax classification.
Opponents of the bill outnumbered proponents by roughly 2-1. Opponents essentially argued that it would undermine local planning control over gravel-pit designations and create potential for gravel pits to crop up in any residential zone that does not have a residential tax classification.
Supporters contend it would protect against sweeping designations such as Flathead County's.
"It's about fairness and equity, and mostly it's about property rights," Heinert said.
Flathead farmer Bruce Tutvedt told the committee that his 320-acre tract includes pivot irrigation, a feedlot and the "biggest tractors you can have," yet it is affected by the county policy.
"Housing is allowed, but this is an ag zone," he said. "This impinges on our property rights."
Tutvedt is involved with a county task force that has been working on ways of sorting residential-agricultural areas based on home densities. But the commissioners haven't taken action on that, so the county remains in "this residential limbo," he said.
Also involved in that task force is Flathead resident Jerry Nix, who opposes Heinert's bill. "I think the county is the best place to figure out what is fair and what is not," he said.
Nix was involved in a lawsuit that prompted legislation two years ago, clarifying that counties have the authority to condition or prohibit gravel pits.
Rep. Mike Jopek, D-Whitefish, sponsored that legislation and told the committee Wednesday that Heinert's bill would not be necessary if Flathead County ultimately sorts out its situation with a more-defined policy on residential areas where gravel pits are prohibited.
While proponents of Heinert's bill are concerned about the precedent being established by Flathead County's policy, opponents are concerned about the potential far-reaching impacts of Heinert's bill.
"This is not a Flathead County issue, it's a statewide issue," said one Missoula resident who is concerned that the bill would allow a gravel pit that her neighborhood opposed, just because the area does not have a residential tax classification.
Several contractors who own gravel pits across the state said their operations could be shut down if other counties followed Flathead County's lead.
Jerry Bowser, environmental manager for Old Castle Materials Co., said the business has land outside Helena that was purchased 10 years ago to be a future gravel pit.
Since buying the land, several subdivisions have been built on neighboring property, he said. Several years ago, the company posted large signs, openly declaring: "Future home of Helena Sand and Gravel."
"It hasn't stopped development," he said, suggesting that the area someday could be declared residential, with a prohibition on gravel pits.
Sen. Gary Perry, R-Missoula, posed a question: "I've heard that this is a Flathead issue and that it's not a Flathead issue, it's a statewide issue … which is it?"
Harold Blattie, an informational witness with the Montana Counties Association who is not taking sides on the matter, responded that "it has potential to become a statewide issue."
The committee took no action Wednesday on Heinert's bill.
Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com