Critical ordinance for Whitefish

The Whitefish City Council is expected to give its highly controversial critical-areas ordinance a final blessing on Monday.

What the overall effect of the new drainage law will be remains to be seen, but it's likely that questions will linger long after its passage.

Will the new law really protect water quality as it's supposed to?

Will property owners have to sue to be able to build on their land?

Will it cost property owners exorbitant consultant fees for site-stability analyses?

Can the city effectively enforce such a broad ordinance, and how much will that cost?

Is the critical-areas ordinance still too complicated for both the experts and ordinary citizens?

The intent of the law is good. Regulations that aim to protect water quality in the Flathead Valley are laudable, and we largely agree with council member John Muhlfeld's contention that it is the responsibility of the governing body to protect its resources.

But at what point should government bureaucracy outweigh personal property rights? Our water resources already are governed by myriad state and federal laws. Is the critical-areas ordinance overkill, as some have suggested?

The city of Whitefish has promised that no lot will be undevelopable under the new law. Property owners may be relegated, however, to building a smaller home than they wanted to on a portion of the property that doesn't have a view. Does that then represent a "taking" by the city?

Geotechnical experts enlisted to review the ordinance said point blank that the law is too complex. Take, for example, the ordinance's language for dealing with construction on steep slopes: "…development shall be prohibited where the percent slope of any segment of the final slope that consists of fill soil or cut slopes, excluding retaining structures designed by a licensed professional engineer, will be greater than the percent slope of the angle of repose of the underlying soils minus 20."

Huh?

Even when the critical-areas ordinance is passed on final reading, there will be lingering turmoil in Whitefish's two-mile planning jurisdiction - the "doughnut" area - where disenfranchised residents have formed a citizens group and two of the three county commissioners want to dissolve the interlocal agreement with the city and take back the doughnut area. That's another can of worms.

So wade carefully into your new critical-areas law, Whitefish. Be willing to make changes if it doesn't work. Be willing to compromise.

We'll all be watching and waiting to see if the critical-areas ordinance will be an effective piece of legislation that truly protects water quality or the springboard for endless lawsuits.