Planning and growth
Missoula County Stream Setback Proposal Raises Opposition
By Stefanie Kilts, 4-24-07
“You should have been at Frenchtown’s meeting” were the first words uttered as I entered Missoula’s meeting on a county-wide stream setback proposal. It was a clear indication of the heated debate that has occurred at a series of public meetings throughout the county and a harbinger of what would ensue last night while people discussed the management of, as one resident put it, “the one thing that everyone owns:” rivers in the county.
About sixty people attended the sixth public meeting of nine in Missoula County to hear the presentation on the proposal, which aims to draw a line between new development and the banks of rivers and streams.
The discussion however, often did not center on the river. Rather, at issue was what to do with the land adjacent to streams and rivers. A majority of the people who spoke during the meeting were private property owners concerned about their rights and the proposal’s effects on their property. Many of the speakers made it clear they were firmly against the proposal. One property owner said if a vote was taken in the room, she predicted the vast majority would vote no for stream setbacks.
The setback from streams would be primarily determined by the outer edge of the riparian vegetation zone or the few areas mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Administration that show the edge of the 100-year floodplain. When these stipulations do not apply to a property, then the setback would be determined on a sliding scale depending on the water source involved. Setbacks range from 75 feet for small streams to 200 feet for major rivers like the Clark Fork and the Bitterroot River.
The stream setback proposal is being proposed by the Missoula County Commissioners after they received feedback from residents who said they wanted to protect the county’s resources. The county’s Rural Initiatives program and the non-profit Clark Fork Coalition worked together to draw up a draft of the proposal.
Mel Waggy, urban landscape scientist for Rural Initiatives, laid out the current options for the protection of streams in the county: no action, education, or a combination of education and setback regulations. She explained that although education is a long-term solution for the protection of river, a need for action has been intensified as a result of the high rate of development in the county.
“People want to live on our river,” she said, explaining that the proposal would help distinguish the line between good and bad development on streams and rivers.
She explained that the impacts on the county’s rivers and streams are seen through greater erosion, disruption of riparian plants and wildlife habitat, seepage of chemicals and pollutants off of hard surfaces into the water, the “cumulative impact” of development that causes effects on other properties downstream, and the flood risk.
“It is much easier to protect something then to restore it,” Waggy said.
Some residents referred to the proposal as a governmental “taking” that stripped property owners of their constitutional rights. Other property owners voiced concern over the issue of compensation for the property that was designated as the setback area.
In response to the many concerns of private property owners, some speakers urged to room to consider all sides of the issue. As they said, the livelihoods of many people depend on the river, whether it be a source of economic or recreational value.
Peter Metcalf, a resident of Missoula, said that with the talk on constitutional rights of property owners, he wanted to make it clear that “I believe in the value of clean water…I want to make sure that my constitutional right to clean water is upheld.”
Some residents suggested that stream issues should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Kim Birck, a resident with property on the Blackfoot River, said that although she wants to protect the river, the current proposal would put the home she had been planning to build “between a rock and a hard spot” because of the property’s location on a high terrace.
The new placement of the home, she said, would cause more environment damage then by the river. With properties similar to hers, she said, the proposal “introduces a lot of uncertainties.”
Besides prohibiting the development of new structures within setbacks, the proposal would also not allow roads or parking lots, and the destruction of riparian vegetation, such as mowing or removing the vegetation on the designated riparian area.
The proposal would allow agricultural uses such as grazing or cropping, timber harvest, weed control, recreational activities, existing uses, and in the case of small lots that may not be able to develop due to the setback, a provision for issuing variances for development. The proposal would also allow the expansion of 15 percent on an existing structure, such as a home. Also, if an existing building is destroyed or damaged, it can be rebuilt within a certain time period.
Waggy said the proposal is expected to go through a series of informal public meetings in order to address issues and concerns. After evaluation of public and staff comments, the proposal will then be presented in a formal hearing in front of the Planning Board and the County Commission.
Waggy ended her presentation on the proposal by urging the people in the room to think of stream setbacks as “…an opportunity to leave a legacy for your children.”
But whether that “legacy” constitutes stream setbacks for Missoula County is sharply divided among residents.
As one long-time property owner said, “We bought our property so our children and grandchildren can build on it…You are trying to put everyone into one basket and destroying the value of something that we have worked our entire life for. I am for protecting the river but this is nonsense.”
But as Vickie Watson, a Missoula resident in support of the proposal, said, “Unfortunately, we all add to the problem” and allowing children and grandchildren to build homes on the river is “a paradise vision we all have…but if we live that, those places won’t be a paradise anymore.”
Public meetings on the county-wide stream setback proposal have already been held in Ninemile, Lolo, Evaro, Frenchtown, and Clinton and three more meetings are scheduled in the coming weeks.
- Swan’s meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 24 at 7:00 p.m. in the Swan Community Hall.
- Potomac’s meeting will be held Thursday, April 26 at 7:00 p.m. at the Lubrecht Experimental Forest.
- Seeley Lake’s meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8 at 7:00 p.m. at the Chamber of Commerce.
[End of article]
I think the reason that there has been such a backlash at the meetings held thus far is that the County did not engage the communities prior to presenting something to them. With a new policy such as the streamside setback that is knowingly a big deal for people the county should have done more to generate ideas and support before handing people a document that has dramatic effects. THe property owners cannot see their values reflected in the document because they did not have a hand in crafting it. It is easy to see why they would feel alienated and put upon.
I also think the document needs to build more flexibility into the performance standards, and the setback for non-FEMA streams should be based on a point system based on existing conditions of the site such as vegetation type and quantity, current use, etc. For instance, on properties that have grass up to the stream bank setbacks could be reduced if riparian vegetation is planted.
Just another avenue for control of Private Property Rights. Hopefully the people who own these properties by the rivers can voice a strong enough will to stop this setback. To make these setbacks along the length of a river is not even sensible. Not every situation is the same, to warrant an all or else attitude. If this is passed, it will give the NGO'S an open door to do as they wish with these river properties, by using an enactment of Congress. This is a back door in to control Private Property Rights.
Comment By Alan G. Anderson, 4-25-07I would have sworn I attended the same meeting as Stephanie, but I only heard favorable comments from three individuals, all quoted directly in this article. There were at least 100 other individuals at that meeting, none in favor of the zoning, yet none were interviewed by Stephanie. I made a point of addressing her directly... didn't see my name mentioned. Great article Stephanie, nothing like objectivity! You deserve a seat at the right, (no pun intended), hand of Al Franken.
Comment By Don Linton, 4-26-07This is a taking of property, pure and simple.
This article by Stefanie Kilts is completly slanted to one side. The people she quoted are all City of Missoula residents which will not be affect by this zoning. It only takes land from people in the county.
Many of my neighbors and I will lose Propety do to this proposed setback.
If these out of staters want to protect the land along the river than they should purchase it on the open market from willing sellers.
I will write more on this as I reseach this unlawful taking of property.
I do know that those living in the City of Missoula should have no say in this issue what so ever. It has no affect on them or thier propety.
Don Linton, Missoula County Property Owner.
Enviro-minded purests are trying to steal our land and our property rights.
Comment By Don Linton, 4-26-07This is bad legislation that has no right to even be considered in Montana.
Comment By Don Linton, 4-26-07We are suppose to be free in Big Sky Country. If you don't like being free to do what you want with your land, and to let your neighbors do what they want with their land, then move to California or Florida.
Comment By Don Linton, 4-26-07And Yes, I am trying to get this on the most commented section. It is disgraceful that our local media is not covering this issue. Thousands of people will lose their land is this issue passes.
Our so-called local paper, the Missoulian, hasn't done anything with this issue. It should be the above the fold head line at least once or twice each week.
The enviro-do-gooders are trying to steal land from hard working families, and trying to dictact to us how we should live our lives.
The Watershed councils are doing the same thing. The Big Hole Watershed that was started by NGO'S, is now getting funding through grants to put up riparian fencing to keep livestock out and away from the river. These NGO'S are pushing the USFW to make the Artic Fluevial Grayling (sp) part of the ESA, this fish is in the Big Hole. Which in turn will take away more private property rights. If you give into to this zoning request, I can guarantee it is only the beginning of the taking of your private property. So if you don't believe me, look up the Wildlands Project, it is real and it is happening. Their plan is to take these river corridors and use them to attach to government owned land or conservation easements, they can do this easily with an enactment of Congress. Have you ever heard of the National Heritage Areas they are doing it now. If you are in a National Heritage Area, lookout, because they will find a ESA, so they can further control your property, it is happening in the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area. It all appears so innocent and great, but it is very harmful.
Comment By A Carlsen, 4-27-07The stream setback requirements do not really take away private property rights.... they merely add to your private property responsibilities.
Comment By Jesse, 4-27-07The setbacks take away what you can do with your property that is a taking of a private property right.
Comment By Don Linton, 4-28-07A Carlsen,
Yes, it is a taking. If you read the resolution, you will see that it sets a mininimum setback width. In a case of a land owner who has property on both sides of even a small seasonal spring fed drainage this takes a 150 ft swath of land out of the land owners control. it sets draconian rules about use and maintance of our privately held land. That is a taking, pure and simple. It also punishes all landowners who have water up front. No matter that most of us are responsible caretakers of our land. We are all punished at the outset, then we can go before the county permit officer to beg and plead for a variance so we can build a shed. I moved to Montana over a decade ago, because I understood it was the last best place, a set were freedom still rings. Now those with subversive agendas are picking away at my freedoms and rights.
It's always about "Me" and not about community or place . What about public water rights & the "public commons"? The few steal from the many. Private land owners also have subversive agenda's. The sword cuts both ways!
By 2050 American's population is expected to increase by another 120 million that will then put our population at 420 million. Do people really believe that we can survive in a country devoid of land eithics?
Our present industrial culture rest upon two things: an incureable case of the "Mores" and the perception of inexhaustability!
Dear Pro-bottle,
You have access to all water between the high water marks. If you want "public commons" get a job, pay taxes, and demand that your city or county provide them to you, the old fashion way, by purchasing them. Course' in that case you'll probably have to forgo some of the other freebies that folks like you demand of socialist regimes.
Unfortunately your children and grandchildren will have visited on them all the truly bad things in in life that people like you so richly deserve.