Letter to the Editor: Floodplain Fiasco

In an interesting letter to the editor printed in the Bitterroot Star (12-10-2008), a Hamilton geologist discusses disaster flood insurance, county oversight, and the Robak and Fox properties where two homes are going up just feet from the banks of the Bitterroot River.

Floodplain fiasco

Dear Editor,

I wanted to talk about the building in the Floodplains of the Bitterroot River in Ravalli County. Prior to our general election this month, a reader described how our access to flood insurance would be repealed with the growth policy. As correct as this contributor was regarding flood insurance, floodplains, and the benefits we receive as a member community, the protections are still in tact due to having a state, county, and most likely a city mitigation plan. A mitigation plan protects the designated floodplain from building, so when regular flood events occur, loss of property and life is reduced.

A problem we are facing in Ravalli County is that city and county environmental health departments are issuing permits to whoever comes in the door with money. The arguments these landowners have is that they have the right to build due to having permits. This is clearly showing the problems we all know are occurring within our local government units.

Mr. Robak of the West Fork, and Mr. Fox on the main branch of the Bitterroot River both own properties which would be classified as being in the floodplain. Here is why: if any portion of a property lies below the established floodplain elevation, the entire property is considered in the floodplain for insurance purposes. Building is allowed on a property as long as it is above what is known as the base flood elevation or BFE. I know this due to being a former officer in the Mitigation Division for FEMA, which administers the National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP). Floodplain maps can be found online; they include base elevations, or elevations of the water within the floodplain. Any enclosed floor in Ravalli County needs to be 2 feet above this base elevation; they can be found at HYPERLINK "http://www.mapcenter.fema.gov" www.mapcenter.fema.gov. There are maps for Ravalli County, or anywhere else in the US at that site.

In an article about Robak, whose case is currently in District (or state) court in Hamilton, the article describes our County Attorney, George Corn as the hero to this situation; he is not. It was the tens of residents who brought this information to the county floodplain administrator for review. The article further quoted Angela Wetzstone, also of the RCAO, who graduated from UM Law last year as an expert on floodplain issues; again, she is not. The county attorney office is a facilitator for the public, and the laws are national, created in US congress in the mid-sixties.

The real message is this: where the city and county governments fail, the floodplain personnel, county, state, and federal are doing their jobs well. The city had no business issuing permits to Mr. Fox whose property sits adjacent to the West Main St. Bridge on the south side. Regardless of the outcome of the district court case, or the findings (to be determined) for Mr. Fox and Mr. Robak, these landowners unknowingly have put our community in danger of losing our status as a protected community for flood events, and protective flood insurance.

FEMA is an emergency financing entity that provides very basic, and as most flood victims attest, non-sufficient repair monies at times of disaster. Without flood insurance, the majority of repairs are on the owner. The federal SBA (Small Business Administration) offers low interest loans to disaster victims, so being a member community with an approved mitigation plan to provide flood insurance and disaster assistance is critical. After working several flood disasters, and seeing the bottom line of the federal and state share of the expenses, neither Mr. Fox nor Mr. Robak could come up with this sum for their decisions to build in a floodplain. These decisions which some are confusing as "property rights" would exclude us as a member community by building in a designated 100 year floodplain (or Zone A or AE). While I believe in property rights, I also believe in a community's choice to have an approved mitigation plan (which protects the 100 year floodplain from building) and thereby gain federal protections to property and life via flood insurance and disaster assistance.

After seeing a photograph of the Robak property, and observing the Fox construction, these buildings will eventually be underwater, no matter what type of external mitigation, if any is erected. Water finds its bottom, and the return interval in 2005 estimates for a 100 year event is now 27 years. Since our last major event was reportedly in the 1970’s (when the Bitterroot River topped West Main St.) we are due for historic flooding within 5 years, or at the outset 25 years. Within one generation, Mr. Robak’s house, and Mr. Fox’s construction project at riverbank level, are both within 100 yards of the natural channel and will be inundated. The next question is: what will be the impact of the septic, and the structure itself when it will be destroyed? Let’s hope Mr. Fox and Mr. Robak will consider demolishing their projects for the betterment of the community. As an example, the only allowed structure in a floodplain is a non-residential pavilion, or a hay barn type structure with no septic capabilities.

Unfortunately, these forays into the floodplain are examples of a county government that has problems communicating between departments. We lack the leadership of a county commission which refuses to hire a county planning director since June of this year. We have a county attorney who wishes to get the positive spin of helping the community, when in fact he has hurt it, and developed its reputation in the state that we now are labeled with. The real heroes are the state flood administrator, who has opened up investigations into these building situations, and once again, a county flood administrator, a true professional we are lucky to have working for us in Ravalli County.

We all love the river, and enjoy playing on it. If you have a million dollars to build a home on the river, hire a competent engineer or geologist to give you good advice on safe and legal building sites on your property. The days should be gone where money and property rights will get you what you want. Less land is available for building, let’s not jeopardize our protections like flood insurance and disaster relief to our community because we have wealthy individuals who have no idea what they are jeopardizing by building their dream homes within the floodplain. This is a community education issue, not a judicial one, or an individual one.

Michael Spreadbury, geologist

Hamilton

The timber frame of the Fox house can be seen in the center of the above photograph taken in Hamilton River Park in November.

West Fork Home Owner in Trouble with the County

Ravalli Republic -- Robaks Fight County Over Floodway

Any fisherman who has waded or floated the section of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River just upstream from the Nez Perce bridge is familiar with the Robak house. The 4600 square foot log home sits just a few yards from the West edge of the river and only a few feet above the river-rock lined bank. I remember wading this section the day the footings were going in and thinking to myself, "You've got to be kidding me? It's going to be awful cold headed to the outhouse in the dead of winter, because there is no way they should have a septic permit." Of course, I was wrong about that, but it is unclear whether Tom Robak didn't break other rules in the construction of his streamside mansion.

In December of 2007, Ravalli County issued a stop-work order "because of a concern they may have illegally brought in a large amount of fill to raise the building site out of the floodway." Construction within the floodplain and adding fill is prohibited by local, state, and federal regulations. If he is found culpable, Mr. Robak will be forced to move or dismantle the house.

Tom Robak denies any wrong doing and claims he's "the victim of a concerted effort by public and private land-use planning advocates."

I am not familiar with any groups conspiring against Mr. Robak, but I can understand why some angst would be directed at him. Mr. Robak is outspoken against proposed streamside setbacks, zoning, and a county growth policy, all of which were dealt a major blow when the Ravalli County Growth Policy was repealed in a ballot initiative on November 4th. He is also the founder of the Big Sky Coalition, a group that advocates more logging on national forests. As Mr. Robak is a retired millionaire from California whose log home mansion is surrounded by forest and sits a few feet from the Bitterroot River, it is hard to argue that his political leanings aren't simply self-serving.

No one can fault Mr. Robak for retiring to the Bitterroot. He chose to live here for the same reasons most of us do, for the ice-cold trout filled streams out are front door, the snow capped mountain peaks out are back door, the abundance of wildlife, and the sense of community and solitude. He is lucky and wealthy enough to build the home of his dreams. I'm not sure that the county will succeed in proving its claim against Mr. Robak, but I am sure of this: It is environmentally irresponsible for Mr. Robak to build a house on the bank of a mountain stream, thumb his nose at Mother Nature, and instigate the inevitable battle between man and the annual spring run-off.

It's this kind of "I'll do what I want!" attitude directed at our beautiful places like the West Fork of the Bitterroot River that gave this site its name.

Check out 4&20 for another take on the Ravalli Republic article on the Robak house.

Post-Election A Mixed Bag in Ravalli County

Missoulian -- Ravalli Growth Policy Appears Headed For Repeal

The morning after a historic Presidential election that filled many millions of Americans with a new hope for the future, some Ravalli County residents are left with a mixed bag of feelings. The Growth Policy, a necessary component to protect the land, rivers, and streams of the Bitterroot from developers and other private interests and a stepping stone to Streamside Setbacks and Zoning, went down in defeat. This result was aided by the State of Montana and the ruling of the county attorney who again excluded county residents living inside a municipality from voting - a slightly skewed example of 'taxation without representation' (think Boston Tea Party). Pete Talbot from 4&20 blackbirds sums up the feeling correctly when he writes: "Bitterrooters continue their quest for Paradise Lost".

Insult was added to injury in the Ravalli County Commissioner's race where the two Democratic candidates, Roger DeHaan and John Meakin, running on a Pro-Growth Policy platform went down in defeat to their anti-zoning Republican counterparts, J.R. Iman and Greg Chilcott.

So, who wins with the defeat of the growth policy and the election of a set of commissioners that will more than certainly stand in the way of any structured land use regulations? Developers, the wealthy, and the "land rich". Of course, they couldn't defeat the Growth Policy on their own. They did it with the help (or, on the backs) of valley residents who believe that helping out wealthy neighbors is part of their civic duty. Which reminds of me of this little rant from The Onion. ...Back to square-one.

Here we go again...

Ravalli Republic -- Incorporated Areas Left Out of Growth Policy Vote

x

I was dumbfounded to read this headline in today's paper (actually my initial response was "What the F__k!"). It was just a couple of years ago, in a similar ruling by the county attorney, that city residents of Ravalli County were kept from casting a vote on an initiative to restrict the size of big box stores in the valley (Wal-mart was the focus). The county attorney's ruling undoubtedly swung the narrow decision in favor of the anti-zoning crowd, a big win for Wal-mart. This time around voters inside city limits will not get a chance to voice their opinion on an initiative to repeal the Growth Policy on Tuesday. Proponents for repealing the Growth Policy will say it's a zoning policy, which it is not. The Growth Policy is a set of guidelines to deal with growth issues and a platform to base county-wide zoning on at a later date. This a major win for the anti-zoning/anti-streamside setback crowd. Although the repeal could yet fail, the county attorney's decision has made it much more difficult. I can already hear the death knells of the Ravalli County Growth Policy in the distance.

The Definition of a Sportsman (4 of 7)

A Sportsman is an Environmentalist

This statement presents a conflict to many Westerners who consider themselves sportsmen. They share a mindset that “environmentalists” are a fringe group out to ruin the livelihoods of blue and white-collar Western workers. Brent from the Corvallis area provides evidence of this mindset in the following quote.

“While environmentalists would like to take credit for protecting everything good on earth, sportsmen do more than their share.”

Brent is correct that sportsmen do a lot for maintaining the areas where they recreate. A National Geographic article entitled “Hunters: For Love of the Land” (Nov. 2007) estimated that “hunters contributed 280 million dollars in 2006 to dozens of groups that devote most of their revenue to conservation,” groups like Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. In fact, the article also surmises, “that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them,” and that “The nation’s 12.5 million hunters have become essentially partners in wildlife management.” So whether Western sportsmen like the title of Environmentalist or not, the proof is in the money; sportsmen are big softies for Mother Nature and that is essentially what an environmentalist is.

Greg Lemon puts it best in quote from, “Blue Man in a Red State”.

“Out here, environmentalists are people who still hunt and fish. They may chain themselves to a tree to keep loggers from cutting it down, but check their freezer and you’ll find steaks from last year’s deer.”

Here are a few of the local issues of environmental consequence that should concern sportsmen.

Drilling on the Rocky Mountain Front
There will be an increased call to allow more coal-bed methane, natural gas, and oil exploration along the Rocky Mountain Front of the United States as the cost of energy continues to rise and with the Bush Administration on its way out. Here are a few questions that need answering: At what point does drilling for fossil fuel trump wildlife and the environment? Is the land only worth what you can extract from it? Who benefits from drilling in the areas where Americans hunt, fish, and hike?

Streamside Setbacks
Streamside development, where structures are built within a few feet of a mountain stream, is an example of an environmentally unfriendly and unsportsman-like activity. A mountain stream naturally moves and changes course from year to year with the spring runoff. Building structures next to a stream leads to eventual streamside stabilization projects like rip-rap which artificially redirect the flow of the river and change the river’s natural local ecology. Montana’s rivers are property of the state and thus every Montanan owns a piece. The sportsmen of Montana have a responsibility to protect this precious resource by installing setbacks in county streamside building permits.

All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)
Operating an ATV in a non-motorized area is not only illegal, but it denudes the land, leaving ruts that increase the extent of erosion during rainstorms or spring runoff. They are also an unnecessary source of noise pollution that can ruin the experience for law-abiding recreationists. ATVs will always be an important part of recreation and hunting in Western States and there will always be places where riding is permitted, but illegal riding and damage to the environment only adds to the call for further restrictions.

In conclusion, a sportsman is an environmentalist. He never disrespects Mother Nature or fouls another man’s experience when entering the realm of the elk and trout. A sportsman understands the value of leaving a small footprint in life because his actions can have a profound effect on the surroundings and the future. Sportsmen are stewards of this planet. We have a responsibility to maintain the health of its animals and land because as Brent puts it, “If we abuse the resources we have, then we also lose what we enjoy most.”

Reflections on the Ravalli County Fair Parade

I attended the Ravalli County Fair Parade this year for the first time with my young daughter. Watching a parade with your child definitely puts the annual spectacle in a different light. The same ol’ thing takes on new life when you witness the excitement in her eyes as she points out the balloons, horses, costumed people, floats, and yummy candy being handed out by generous strangers. She grips a little tighter in response to the blaring horns from the emergency response vehicles and cuts loose on the concrete doing her best imitation of the county cloggers. You feel her excitement and it brings a smile to your face.

Then it fades at the sight of the local politicians working the rope lines. But it isn’t the people themselves that suck all the fun out of the air, it’s the message some of them carry and the conversations I overhear coming from my neighbors on either side. You’ve seen the signs I’m talking about, any resident of the valley has viewed them before – “Vote No on Zoning” or “No Streamside Setbacks” – messages associated with the local chapter of the GOP. An older gent to my right in a cowboy hat and sporting a black T with the initials NRA emblazoned on his chest leans over to what must be his grandkids and says, “Now, these are the good guys,” pointing to the local Republican candidates as they stroll past. Brainwashing the next generation starts early, I guess.

The number one issue facing Ravalli County is how to deal with growth. It’s a well understood and widely accepted problem because Ravalli is one of the fastest growing counties in Montana. Three Democrat commissioners even road a message of “responsible land use regulations” to power in the elections of 2007. I thought it was well understood that they were talking about zoning. Now, two years later, county-wide zoning (the dirty “z”-word), something that is not even in place yet, is facing a vote for its survival. Two years worth of work may be for not because a vocal group has uttered a simple response – “You can’t tell me what to do with my land!” It stinks of a few wealthy, land-rich individuals who have motivated contractors, builders, realtors, and the anti-establishment crowd, people who are easily persuaded, to join ranks against common sense.

Now, I’m an equal opportunity person. I’m willing to listen to opinions or ideas that I may not agree with as long as they are based in fact and solid reasoning. But unfortunately, the “Vote No on Zoning” and “No Streamside Setbacks” crowd don’t believe they have to be held up to the same standards. You can compare them to children. A child my not understand it, but “No… Because I don’t want to!” is not a good enough reason to get out of responsibility. If they don’t like the options presented to them, the anti-zoning group should suggest other options to address the valley’s growing pains. “No!” is not an option.

Zoning is necessary not to curb growth, but to control what type and where development occurs. It is important to protect the distinct communities already present in the valley and to allow time to continually upgrade and extend infrastructure to new residents. Mega-developments as large as a small town, miles outside city limits, are not examples of responsible growth.

Streamside setbacks are important to maintain the life-blood of our valley. Setbacks allow a freedom of movement for the Bitterroot River and its tributaries, something that is restricted if a land owner builds his mega-mansion a foot from the riverbank. This kind of development leads to streambank stabilization projects, such as rip-rap, and permanently throws off kilter the native ecology of the river. The person who does this is pointing a big middle finger in the air and saying screw my neighbor and screw Mother Nature.

So to those who oppose responsible land use regulations, I suggest you come up with some smart alternatives and contribute constructively to the process because I don’t want a view of the 'Root from on top of a mountain to be a sea of lights from Missoula to Sula, from the Bitterroots to the Sapphire Mountains. “No!” is simply not good enough.

Schweitzer Reaffirms His Support of Streamside Setbacks

Ravalli Republic--Gov. Schweitzer Supports Streamside Setbacks (8/6/2008)

At a mixer at the Daly Mansion in Hamilton, Gov. Brian Schweitzer fielded a question about streamside setbacks that Joel Gallob reported on in the local paper. The article is not found on the Ravalli Republic website.

Regarding Montana's rivers and streams, Schweitzer said, "The most precious resource in Montana is not the gold in the mountains, or platinum, or palladium, or coal, or oil, or gas. It's our water." He continued, "Snow from our own winter helps the entire country. Fifty percent of the water in the Columbia is ours and seventy percent in the Missouri Basin is Montana snow."

He emphasized that it is important "to maintain our water quality for future generations," and that it includes "minimum standards of streamside setbacks."

First Draft of Ravalli County (MT) Streamside Protection Regulations is Out for Public Review

Streamside protection regulations are an important water related issue in Western states. As opposed to Midwestern states and states East of the Mississippi River, Rocky Mountain states experience an annual life giving flood in the late spring when temperatures rise and the mountain snow packs begins to melt. The snowmelt sustains this arid land by refilling reservoirs which supply water for drinking and irrigation purposes. The annual flood also cleans and reshapes the river valleys, an important part of maintaining a healthy mountain river ecosystem. It is the natural movement of the river that streamside regulations aim to protect by setting back new structures from the banks of Western rivers.

Before streamside protection regulations are enacted in Ravalli County, Montana, property owners are within their rights to build homes and other structures right on the Bitterroot River. They also have the right to protect their property by stabilizing the streambank. Sections of the river lined with large, jagged edged stones (see photo below) is an example of streambank stabilization known as rip-rap. Rip-rap presents an unnatural impediment to a healthy mountain river ecosystem. Rip-rap forces the momentum of the river down which creates deep stagnant pools, or turns the entire force of the river downstream which increases the erosion of neighboring land (and that doesn't make for happy neighbors). Streambank stabilization practices can be avoided if structures are setback from the banks of the Bitterroot River.

Here are a few of the main points from the first draft of Ravalli County's Streamside Protection Regulation.

1. Any structure planning to be built within 250 feet of a regulated stream must apply for a permit.



2. The regulation calls for a buffer and a setback. For the West Fork of the Bitterroot River below Painted Rocks Dam, the entire East Fork of the Bitterroot, and the main stem of the Bitterroot River, the buffer region is all land within the 100 year floodplain as designated by FEMA. The setback is 100 feet beyond the outer boundary of the floodplain on either side of the river.



3. For main tributaries to the Bitterroot River (those mountain streams as designated by the regulation): The buffer of tributaries is 100 feet as measured from the high water mark on either side of the stream. The setback is 50 feet from the buffer zone.



4. Structures that pre-date the enacting of streamside setbacks will be grandfathered.



5. Violation of any approved variance will be subject to criminal prosecution.

This is the first step in what probably will be a long contentious battle between the county and private land owners. Hopefully the final version will be in the best interest of everyone who calls Ravalli County home. The county commissioners would like your input on the proposal. See the Ravalli Republic for the story, address, and email contacts to submit comments.

The picture above is of the Bitterroot River just upstream from the Main Street bridge in Hamilton. You can see an example of rip-rap on the right bank of the river.