By Michael Howell
The Ravalli County Commissioners have been considering adoption of revised flood plain regulations for a few weeks now. The first meeting, on December 15, to potentially adopt the new regulations, drew extensive comment from the public and was continued to a meeting on December 22. That meeting, in turn has been continued to Wednesday, January 7. There is a deadline of January 16 for the county to adopt a new flood plain map developed by the state that is more accurate than the maps currently in use.
Although adoption of the new LIDAR maps has not been controversial, the changes being proposed in the flood plain regulations has generated some protest. Planning Department Manager Terry Nelson has proposed adopting the model regulations being promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The most significant difference in this respect is that the model rules allow residential development in part of the flood plain, called the flood fringe, while residential development is currently prohibited in the entire flood plain in the county’s current regulations.
At the December 22 meeting, Bitterroot River Protection Association Program Director Michael Howell submitted a set of documents that he said provided scientific evidence that would support the need for more stringent flood plain regulations in the Bitterroot Valley and urged the Commissioners to consider the information before adopting regulations that would allow residential development there.
He quoted from the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, stating, “The Bitterroot River has an inherently unstable hydraulic configuration and high channel instability…” and in areas, shows “a complex pattern that is characterized by numerous braided channels that spread over a wide area.” Howell said the Bitterroot River is unique in how it jumps around in the flood plain from one side to the other over the years and allowing residential construction there would lead to disaster. Either homes would be washed out or they would be armored by riprap to save them. But, he said, a review of the literature on the subject shows that riprapping is not the answer. It only relays the problem down river and has negative impacts on the fisheries.
Howell said that all the experts and the other agencies involved seem to be in agreement that the Bitterroot Valley has more stringent flood plain regulations than anywhere else in the state because it needs them. He said it was only the county’s Planning Department Manager that doesn’t seem to understand the need.
Wayne Hedman gave the commissioners some “philosophical” comments on the fact that the Bitterroot River is not like other rivers in the state. He said that the Bitterroot Valley and western Montana in general were “economies in transition.” He said since the demise of the timber industry “the economies of the Bitterroot Valley have changed so much that the single most valuable entity left in the Bitterroot Valley is the Bitterroot River. And my admonition to you is you do nothing to compromise the integrity and health of the Bitterroot River because that is what you’ve got left as an economic draw.” He urged the Commissioners to go slowly and not politicize the issue.
Jack Mauer, a river outfitter for 30 years, also stated that the river was very dynamic and always changing course, sometimes in very surprising ways and he expressed opposition to placing houses in the flood plain.
FWP Fisheries Biologist Chris Clancy has been adamant that many places in the flood fringe are not safe for residential construction, but he said he recognizes that some places in the flood fringe could be developed safely and suggested a compromise. He said based on a cursory inspection of the current flood plain he was able to identify three types of areas now being mapped as “flood fringe.”
The first type included all the areas where the river now runs through land designated as flood fringe.
“Where you have an active river channel in the flood fringe something is probably wrong,” said Clancy. He said if homes had been built in these flood fringe areas over the last 20 years they would be in trouble now.
A second table shows areas that are mapped in the flood fringe but which show significant channel scars that may capture the river again at some future time.
In a third table he highlighted areas mapped in the flood fringe that will probably never see the river again due to infrastructure improvements that will probably never be abandoned, such as Highway 93 and the bridges that cross the river. He said some development in these areas probably could be allowed without fear of the river moving through again.
“There is a lot of room for middle ground here,” said Clancy. He suggested that all the concerned agencies get together and try to work out a studied approach to the issue.
“We could come up with a fairly elegant approach as to how to deal with the flood way and flood fringe in the river without setting folks up for difficulties down the road.”
Jim Rokosch, President of Bitterrooters for Planning, said that the first draft of the new regulations should have been made available to the public and should have included the public and the other agencies involved from the beginning. He called the line between the flood way and the flood fringe an “arbitrary line” based on an “archaic model” that does not match what is on the ground. He said a study of lawsuits across the country filed over flood plain issues shows that there are successful lawsuits in many places challenging the local government decisions that allowed residents to build in the flood plain.
Other people mentioned flood events across the country that were totally unexpected but led to deaths, injuries and property damage.
Howard Eldridge suggested that the commissioners adopt the new map and the new regulations but simply add a restriction to any new residential construction in the flood fringe. He suggested that an advisory board could be set up with some criteria for recommending exclusions to that restriction.
Planning Department Manager Terry Nelson, who made the decision to present the DNRC model plans as a working draft, said that making rules more restrictive than current state law would require scientific studies showing the need and a study of the economic impacts of the rule.
Deputy County Attorney Howard Recht said, however, that in his opinion the rules that have been in place for 17 years restricting residential building in the flood plain could be continued.
Following a lot of discussion about the role of the various jurisdictions involved and the question of the extent of the Flood Plain Administrator’s authority and the details of the permitting process, the commissioners decided to continue the meeting to January 7.
The two new County Commissioners taking office in January will review the video record of the two previous meetings as well as all written submittals and participate in the decision making process. The county has until January 16 to adopt the new flood plain map and updated regulations for county residents to qualify for the National Flood Insurance Program.