I hope the good people of this valley are paying attention to what our planning department and our commissioners are about to do to our Bitterroot River. Under the guise of having to be compatible with the new, higher resolution, FEMA maps (which is required for landowners wanting FEMA flood insurance), they have discarded the old regulations and are proposing the minimum state regulations as a replacement. These minimum standard State regulations allow developments within the floodplain that are absolutely prohibited by our current local regulations. These include new home construction, waste storage, and expansion of septic capacity. Apparently, our Planning Department Administrator has spent some months wordsmithing and fine-tuning the state regulations for adoption by Ravalli County. To my knowledge, this has been done without any public input. Are you OK with this?
Do not be fooled. While floodplain regulations must be consistent with the new FEMA maps for insurance purpose, there is absolutely no need to replace our current regulations because of the new maps. Our commissioners are just taking this opportunity to once again remove any environmental regulations they can that restrict activity on private property. They did this two years ago for our county subdivision regulations, also under the guise that they wanted to be consistent with State regulations (minimum standards).
Ravalli County is (was) the only county to have floodplain regulations more stringent than the minimum standard state regulations. This was for good reason. As several people testified, the bitterroot is an active river – what today might be in the “fringe” area of the floodplain could be in the river proper next year. Allowing development in this fringe area puts homeowners at risk as well as exposing the County to lawsuits.
If we allow our elected officials to implement this travesty, we will be essentially sacrificing “our” river for the personal benefit of a few landowners. This river and our collective use of it should come first. The notion that private property “rights” supercede the basic “rights” of the river ecosystem is wrong and must be reversed. Nationwide (globally for that matter), the evidence is overwhelming in support of this view. We are already paying the piper for our collective denial of responsibility; polluted water and air, drying aquifers, dead zones in our oceans, global warming, loss of species and habitat, human suffering, ….. on and on.
We should also consider the rights of the public. Should my rights as a fishing guide be secondary to someone who wishes to maximize property value? Is the health of our recreation based economy secondary to individual property values?
Kelsey Milner
Hamilton