|
||
| Volume XVIII, Number 6 | Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2002 | |
Clarification on library Dear Editor, I would like to clarify and correct some statements on the front page of the August 28 issue of the Star. I am current Chairman of the North valley District Library (the library in Stevensville proper) and feel I can give more accurate accounting of the events mentioned in the article. First, the library did not turn in a budget requesting 6.5 mills. Our original budget submitted for the fiscal 2001-2002 year was based on the 5-mill levy as per the new inter-local agreement of the city of Stevensville and the county of Ravalli. We did not intend to supersede that agreement but the state attorney general issued a ruling (I believe it was in February of this year) in a clarification of the Big Bill passed by the previous session of the Legislature, stating that all county governments were required by law to fund their libraries at the previous year's funding, with an additional small increase for inflation, each year. All we did was inform the county of the ruling and request that they fund us according to what the attorney general had ruled as state law. We would have been remiss as trustees of the library if we had not brought it to their attention. The bill sent out by the county in July stated, generally, that this was a bill to correct an error on the original tax bills, and that is what it did. It was an error basically caused by the fact that many counties were confused about what the Big Bill actually required of them in terms of determining funding. I hope this clears things up. Tammie Milligan Stevensville |
||
Re: 'What¹s Up With DNRC?' Dear Editor, I thought it was only fair that I respond to your editorial even though I am no longer a DNRC employee. As you are aware, I've worked mostly in the water rights field for the past 22 years. I was involved in the applications of Mr. Siebel that you discuss in your editorial, since I once worked for Mr. Siebel. However, I actually worked for an objector to these applications. There were some inaccuracies in your editorial that I would like to clear up. In the third paragraph, Item 1, you discuss the movement of points of diversion and headgates being located on natural channels. As you should be aware, the original Tucker headgate was constructed in the early 1900's and later moved in the 1940's. This was not done by rich out-of-state owners as you alluded to. The actual headgate and diversion structure (Tucker headgate) was originally developed for irrigation for three separate companies - Etna, Webfoot and Union. These water supply and ditch companies provide irrigation water to local farmers and ranchers. Their secondary diversion on the East/West Fork branch is necessary to obtain their water at the headgate. These companies must use their rights or lose them. Historically, gravel was mounded (diversion dam) to force water down the east channel to the Tucker headgate. This practice was temporary and had to be done each irrigation season. Since this was an environmentally unfriendly approach, the water users replaced this diversion method. The local farmers, ranchers, out-of-state land owners, and the companies constructed a more environmental, fish friendly diversion. It is incorrect for you to assume that rich, out-of-state landowners developed this system for their personal private gain. In paragraph 4, Item 2, and beyond, you state DNRC is giving away our public fisheries. I also must take exception with that statement. I've represented both applicants and objectors dealing with fish, wildlife, and recreation applications, and have found the complete opposite. DNRC has made it extremely difficult to obtain a water right for fish, wildlife, or recreation as opposed to irrigation or stock water. In fact, fish and wildlife applicants have a higher level of burden of proof since they must show the amount of water requested is necessary and reasonable. I personally have had to go through great lengths to meet this criteria for my clients. In almost every case, a fisheries biologist, hydrologist, surveyor, and sometimes a soil engineer and wetland specialist, etc. to gather all of the data required by DNRC. For irrigation, stock water, or domestic permits, this level of burden and expertise is usually not required. If anything, DNRC has bent the rules against fish and wildlife applicants as opposed to what you state, bending the rules to help them. You should read all of DNRC's policy memos and legal opinions before making that assumption. As you are aware, DNRC has a backlog on processing new applications, and for them to issue a permit 2-1/2 years after a basin closure is not unusual. Any application that was received after the basin closure deadline was rejected. I personally have had clients that have waited over four years to have their applications processed and noticed. Therefore, l feel that you misled the public in your editorial on this point. The applications were received prior to the basin closure. Siebel's was not the only last minute application. I know DNRC received over 50 applications prior to the basin closure. However, l will agree with you that the applicant possibly broke these applications up into smaller ones to avoid the more stringent criteria for one large application. I agree that it appears to be one project with multiple ponds and diversions. I'm sure DNRC was aware that the applicant was trying to avoid the more stringent criteria, although I'm not sure if DNRC has the jurisdiction to combine the applications. Maybe this problem should be pointed out to our legislators during the upcoming session. The two applications that you referenced that were withdrawn were older ones that another consultant (myself) prepared for Mr. Siebel that were based on old designs and had nothing to do with Mr. Siebel trying to double up on water. In summary, l believe that you should have all of the facts accurate before publishing an editorial. I realize that these are only opinions, as is mine, however, l just wanted to make sure that the public was aware of the facts in this case. As I stated above I was in opposition to the above applications for a client of mine, however, we believe that the outcome was reasonable. I do not believe that DNRC is trying to privatize our public resources, and its unfortunate that the State official answered your question by saying "water flows towards money." That was wrong. Lastly, l do believe that DNRC should have treated this as one large project and made the applicant meet the higher criteria burden if they have jurisdiction to do so. Lee Yelin, Consultant Water Rights, Inc. |
||
Development standards good idea Dear Editor, Land Use is one of the most important features of a Growth Policy. The Land Use Committee of School District 3 spent hundreds of hours in preparing guidelines and goals for the residents of Hamilton School District 3. All of these proposals were to be part of our Neighborhood Plan. Included in our plan were Development Standards which were included to protect the rights of the people. Development Standards are also used to replace zoning. Zoning and/or regulations come after a Growth Policy is adopted either by the commissioners or a vote of the people. Subdivision Regulations must be changed to comply with a growth policy one year after adoption of the growth policy. If any item is not in the growth policy, on what basis can the subdivision regulations be amended? Also if there is a conflict between what is stated in a neighborhood plan and that stated in the countywide plan, which has precedent? Under zoning we would have districts set up for residential, commercial/business and industrial development. In each of the districts the height and bulk of buildings, percentage of land use to be occupied by the building, the size of the yard, parking and open space and the use of land and buildings for trade, industry, residential or any other purpose is spelled out. Essentially zoning is a means of insuring that the land uses of the county are properly situated in relation to one another, that adequate space is available for each type of development. Also, the density of development in each area is held at a level that can be serviced by our county facilities for streets, schools, recreation and utilities. Development standards are quite different in land use planning. First of all they permit building in any area of the county. (Note: we only requested it in our school district although it could be countywide if adopted by each school district). In order for any building to be erected it must meet standards for development. That is, it must pass septic, water, roads, services, density etc. Of course in a subdivision all of their regs must be followed. Let's look at two examples to show the difference of each. Under zoning a residence grandfathered in as a non-conforming use lies in a business district. A disaster occurs and the residence is destroyed by fire, flood, wind, or any other natural disaster. Since the residence is in a district zoned for business it cannot be reconstructed as a residence. This is true in all zoned districts. There cannot be a non-conforming use. Under development standards we don't have zoned districts. Using the same example of a residence being destroyed, the residence can be reconstructed as long as it meets the development standards. These standards are as aforementioned. They can be added onto, changed, etc. whenever needed. Isn't this a better way to protect your rights? Land use covers many areas of a Growth Policy. It is used in farming/ranching, water and air quality and quantity to name a few. If you believe in this concept come out to the hearings and speak up. You need to be heard. Bob Frost Hamilton |
||
DNRC responds to Star editorial Dear Editor, Your August 14, 2002 editorial asks, "What's up with DNRC?" Once again, l will do my best to answer this question as it relates to the issues you raised. Access to the Mitchell The issue of public access to the Mitchell (Slough or Ditch) underlies much of the editorial. Examples include "landowners... claiming portions of the river as private," "giving away our public fisheries," and "inquiring with Fish, Wildlife, and Parks if there was fishing access to Mitchell Slough." As a member of the Bitterroot River Protection Association, Inc. (BRPA), the editor should be aware of a Montana Supreme Court decision regarding access to the Mitchell. In an April 4, 2002 decision regarding this specific issue as brought to the court by BRPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the local Conservation District has the authority and responsibility to determine what water bodies come under their jurisdiction. It is not the jurisdiction of DNRC or DFWP to make the call on public access to the Mitchell. The Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Siebel applications included analysis with and without public access, but remained neutral on the issue. DNRC is not allowing public waterways or fishery resources to be privatized as a result of granting these water rights. Public Access to Applications The issue you raise regarding denial of public access to these applications was answered in our response to your last editorial. Public access to these application files was never denied. The staff tried to discourage you from reporting information about the original applications to avoid confusion, because they knew that those applications were likely to be revised by the applicant in the course of the department's review. You received copies of these early applications and the applications were substantially revised before the permits went to public notice. DNRC Processing of Applications The Siebel water right applications were legitimately filed in a timely manner and have been processed according to applicable laws and policies. Each application was determined to be a separate, stand-alone project. However, the total volume and flow rate of all five permits, as granted, fall well below the statutory limits that would require additional evaluation criteria. This DNRC process is designed to include the public. Notices of the water right applications were distributed to potentially affected water right holders and interested parties and published in a local paper. An Environmental Assessment was made available to the public for review and comment. Objections to the applications were received and modifications made to the applications to satisfy many of the concerns. A hearing was held on the remaining objections. A Final Order was issued by Jack Stults, Water Resources Division Administrator. This order can be appealed in District Court. DNRC has neither an interest in denying or permitting water right applications. We maintain neutrality in the evaluation of the applications and objections to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with applicable laws and policy. As our population grows and water use increases and changes across the state, conflicts will continue. We appreciate any opportunity to inform the public on water use and water rights. If you have any questions, please contact your local DNRC Water Resources office. I hope that this response gives you and your readers a better understanding of the legally mandated water right application process and the DNRC's role in that process. Bud Clinch, Director Montana Department of Natural Resource & Conservation (DNRC) |
||