Setback hearing draws 65

Proposed rules now in hands of commissioners

By JOHN STANG/Daily Inter Lake

The majority of speakers supported proposed stream setbacks for new Flathead County subdivisions at a Thursday hearing.

It was the second of two hearings on streamside setbacks. The proposed regulations do not apply to existing property as long as it is not subdivided.

The commissioners plan to discuss the proposed subdivision regulations on Nov. 10, with an actual vote yet to be scheduled.

At the latest hearing, roughly 48 of the 65 people in attendance testified. Thirty backed the proposed setbacks or wanted them tougher.

They included Democratic county commissioner candidate Steve Qunell.

"You're on the right track, making sure all of us are protected," Qunell told the commissioners.

Fourteen people opposed the proposed regulations, including Sen. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell.

Jackson said the state Legislature voted against streamside setbacks in its last session and likely will vote against them in the upcoming session, unless scientific evidence surfaces that shows they are effective in protecting water quality.

"I have seen no evidence that this [current water] pollution is human-caused,"Jackson said.

And four speakers did not give a clear indication of where they stood.

"The county has a legitimate interest in protecting that riparian area," said Richard Kuhl of Kalispell.

However, Corinne Johnson of Bigfork told the commissioners: "I feel my right to divide my property and remove vegetation should be my own. … I feel my property becomes yours and I just live there."

After scrutinizing numerous studies and receiving public input, the county planning staff and board tried to achieve middle ground in the setbacks recommended by various scientists.

Proposed setback widths will be measured from the high-water mark to the edge of the 100-year flood plain as shown on a Federal Emergency Management Agency map or:

. The Flathead River and its three forks, Stillwater River, Whitefish River and Swan River, would have 250-foot setbacks with 100-foot vegetative buffers.

. Ashley Creek (from Smith Lake to the Flathead River) and the Fisher River would have 200-foot setbacks with 75-foot vegetative buffers.

. All other streams would have 60-foot setbacks with 50-foot vegetative buffers. Eight people on Thursday wanted to increase that distance to 100 feet.

Because of public complaints about a "one size fits all" policy, the county is proposing a riparian management plan that would allow a developer to request some flexibility with setback requirements.

At the first hearing on Oct. 23, 15 people opposed the proposed setbacks, including at least six who spoke again on Thursday. And 10 people supported them, including at least one who spoke again on Thursday.

Organizations opposing the proposed setbacks include American Dream Montana, the Montana Environmental Consultants Association, the Flathead Building Association, Flathead Business and Industry Association and the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors.

Supporters included the University of Montana's Flathead Lake Biological Station, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Flathead Wildlife Inc., Flathead Ducks Unlimited, Flathead Trout Unlimited, the Flathead chapter of the Audubon Society, Montana Conservation Voters, Flathead Lakers, Flathead Basin Commission and Citizens for a Better Flathead.

In fact, the biological station believes great setbacks are needed.

In a letter to the commissioners, the station also contended that setbacks would help cut back on nutrient concentrations in the Flathead's rivers and lakes. In a few years, the federal government will limit nutrient concentrations in stream and lakes, which will require expensive improvements on sewage treatment plants.

Supporters' main points included:

. Huge numbers of studies back the proposed setbacks.

. The water quality in streams needs strong protection for ecological, quality-of-life and tourism reasons.

. The commissioners legally can install stricter setbacks than the state has.

. The proposed revisions include some flexibility for case-by case approaches.

. Wildlife tends to move along streams, and the buffers are needed to help that movement.

"Everyone in the room respects property rights. … In Montana, rivers belong to everybody. Wildlife belongs to everybody. Water quality belongs to everybody," Kalispell resident Ben Long said.

Ben Cavin of Whitefish said: "Once water quality becomes degraded, it too late to recover what is lost."

The opponent's main points included:

. A strongly felt view that the setbacks would take away control of their own lands, and essentially would turn those plots into government-controlled preserves.

. Lawsuits likely will be filed if the current proposed setbacks are adopted.

. Feelings that the regulations would be a "one-size-fits-all" law, when subdivided streamside lands should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

. Complaints that the proposed county setbacks are greater and stricter than corresponding state laws.

. Contentions that the science behind the proposed setbacks should be re-examined.

"I find it a blatant abuse of our constitution," Richard Stevens said.

William Myers Jr. has waterfront development plans in Bigfork, and argued that the proposed setbacks would deny him use of his land.

"That's the uncompensated taking of property. That's the definition of communism. ..If you want to take it, bring a check," he said.

Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at jstang@dailyinterlake.com