Board of Health decision called into question

by Michael Howell

The recent decision by the Ravalli County Board of Health to not accept any groundwater monitoring reports for the 2024 season due to prevailing drought conditions has been called into question. The decision was made based on SNOTEL measurements being greater than 25% below the 30-year average, indicating that this year was going to be a year of unusually low groundwater levels that would likely go back up to average levels. Environmental Health Director John Palacio noted that there was no record of the snowpack being this low in the last 20 years and thus no record of this type of decision ever being made before.

Commissioner Jeff Burrows stated that he had heard from a lot of the public following the decision, asking who the reviewing authority really was for this kind of decision. As a result, he asked the County Attorney for an answer and the answer was that following a change in the law made by the State legislature in 2021, it is the Board of County Commissioners that has the authority and not the Board of Health. The new law, sponsored by Ravalli County Representative David Bedey, was intended to place authority in the hands of elected officials rather than appointed officials not directly responsible to the public.  

“This opinion pretty much nullifies the Board of Health’s decision in this matter,” said Burrows, who also serves as Chairman of the Board of Health. He said the matter would have to be taken before the Board of Commissioners and that the Board of Health’s decision could be taken as their “recommendation” to the commissioners. “I think we are going to have to have a commissioners’ meeting to decide if groundwater results are going to be accepted this year or not,” he said.

Health Board member Skip Chisholm asked if this meant that decisions about granting variances would have to go before the county commissioners as well.

Burrows said that some clarification on that matter might be needed. It was noted that the Planning Board has no authority over subdivision decisions and only makes recommendations, but they still make decisions on all variance requests.

Health Board member Louis Danes asked, “If the commissioners decide to deny what the Board of Health has done, where does that leave people who were denied? Because this year would be a great time to turn my horse pasture into buildable property. If I had hundreds of acres that I could develop in a dry year, that’s money in my pocket.”

Chisholm noted that there were certainly economic impacts from decisions of this sort but that the goal of the Board of Health was to protect the aquifer. He said if the county commissioners are taking on the responsibility of making the decisions, then the responsibilities to protect the aquifer would also fall on them.

Roger DeHaan, a former member of the Board of Health, echoed Chisholm’s remarks, saying that the law states that the board “shall” protect the public health. “Does all that fall on the county commissioners now?”

Burrows said that clarification was obviously needed because it would seem that this might strip all authority from the Board of Health “but I know that’s not what the commissioners want, to remove variances. They do not want that on their plate.”

He said that he had just emailed the county attorney about how far-reaching this opinion is about the Board of Health’s authority.

“This opinion doesn’t help much,” said Burrows.

The Board of Commissioners have scheduled a meeting for Thursday, June 27th at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the issue.