spectr17
04-09-2003, 10:56 AM
April 7, 2003
The debate over houses vs. healthy rivers has little middle ground
By LORNA THACKERAY Of The Billings Gazette Staff
Between 1990 and 2000, the number of seasonal homes in Big Horn County grew by about 50 percent, from 198 to 296. They represented more than one-quarter of all housing units built in that decade.
Local planners expect that during the current decade, another 80 to 100 families will build second homes in the county. Most will be along streams and rivers, many in the Bighorn River corridor.
Development pressure on the Bighorn and other streams pushed county officials to decide they must have some means of control. Planning Board member Rusty Rokita said that until now, development was dealt with one project at a time, with little consideration for the cumulative impact. As long as developers could meet basic code and sanitation requirements, not much could be done to restrain a project that might be detrimental to the overall health of the river, he said.
A house along the river seems harmless enough, but a lot of development might not be so benign. Water quality, bank stabilization and channelization of the river are only some of the problems, he said.
"One person puts in some rip-rap to stabilize his stream bank, and the river starts cutting into his neighbor's property downstream," Rokita said. "Then the neighbor has to put in rip-rap to stabilize his stream bank, and on down the river. Pretty soon the river has carved out a new channel."
Channelization shortens the course of the river, adding speed and force to the water and increasing erosion of banks downstream, said Bruce Farling of Montana Trout Unlimited.
Farling also fears the increasing number of septic systems near Montana rivers. Water quality is a big issue for both the Crow Tribe and Big Horn County. It was one of the priorities emphasized by county residents who attended the 50 meetings the Planning Board held while developing a county growth policy.
But Jim Torske, a Hardin attorney and Bighorn Valley landowner, asserts that fishermen present more of a sanitation problem than landowners' septic tanks. Bathroom facilities are almost nonexistent along the river, he said, and sometimes as many as 1,200 people a day are fishing there.
"They're making a cesspool of the upper Bighorn corridor," he said. "It's just out of control with what's happening with human excrement."
Jim Darling, regional fisheries manager for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, disagreed. Darling said septic tanks are more of a problem than fishermen, especially if drainfields become saturated during flooding. But since the county is concerned about lack of toilet facilities, state officials will be working with the commissioners to resolve the issue, he said.
Farling said another factor to consider in determining river setback is wildlife. Construction too close to the river destroys habitat. A draft of permanent setback regulations includes a natural vegetation strip not less than 50 feet wide along all streams in Big Horn County.
Eye of the beholder
Whether development has gotten out of hand depends on who's talking. What anyone sees is a matter of perception as much as what's actually there. And what's there bothers people in different degrees.
Development along the river bothers Billings fisherman John Gibson a lot.
"I wish we'd had setbacks of 300 or 500 feet years ago," he said.
Gibson, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, said he would enjoy his fishing experience much more if fishing lodges and big homes didn't dot the river.
"They're almost saying, 'You're not welcome here, this is ours,' " he said.
Michael Mastrangelo, an outfitter and owner of the Fort Smith Fly Shop, has mixed feelings about the setbacks.
"I really believe in individual rights," he said. "You should be able to do what you want on your own land as long as you don't impinge on other people's rights."
Mastrangelo said he's been fishing the Bighorn since 1985, and hasn't noticed a lot of development. Because so much of the land is in tribal hands, he really doesn't expect to. It's also a fairly remote area, with not a lot to do if you don't fish, he said.
"Really, none of these developments are offensive to me," Mastrangelo said. "If a lot of land was available and there were houses every 150 feet, that would be a different thing."
Les Zuck, president of Magic City Fly Fishers, said 300-foot setbacks would probably be a good idea, but wonders if those kinds of restrictions can be imposed.
"I'd hate to see one right on the river," he said. "But 300 feet sounds excessive to me."
Whatever the current state of development, now is the time to set the rules, said Janet Ellis of the Montana Audubon Society.
"When you start to notice it (development), it's probably too late," she said.
Darling applauds the county's efforts.
"We've looked at something like this for years, but there's such a diversity of ownership, we can't do anything," he said. "But the county can, and we will support them any way we can."
The debate over houses vs. healthy rivers has little middle ground
By LORNA THACKERAY Of The Billings Gazette Staff
Between 1990 and 2000, the number of seasonal homes in Big Horn County grew by about 50 percent, from 198 to 296. They represented more than one-quarter of all housing units built in that decade.
Local planners expect that during the current decade, another 80 to 100 families will build second homes in the county. Most will be along streams and rivers, many in the Bighorn River corridor.
Development pressure on the Bighorn and other streams pushed county officials to decide they must have some means of control. Planning Board member Rusty Rokita said that until now, development was dealt with one project at a time, with little consideration for the cumulative impact. As long as developers could meet basic code and sanitation requirements, not much could be done to restrain a project that might be detrimental to the overall health of the river, he said.
A house along the river seems harmless enough, but a lot of development might not be so benign. Water quality, bank stabilization and channelization of the river are only some of the problems, he said.
"One person puts in some rip-rap to stabilize his stream bank, and the river starts cutting into his neighbor's property downstream," Rokita said. "Then the neighbor has to put in rip-rap to stabilize his stream bank, and on down the river. Pretty soon the river has carved out a new channel."
Channelization shortens the course of the river, adding speed and force to the water and increasing erosion of banks downstream, said Bruce Farling of Montana Trout Unlimited.
Farling also fears the increasing number of septic systems near Montana rivers. Water quality is a big issue for both the Crow Tribe and Big Horn County. It was one of the priorities emphasized by county residents who attended the 50 meetings the Planning Board held while developing a county growth policy.
But Jim Torske, a Hardin attorney and Bighorn Valley landowner, asserts that fishermen present more of a sanitation problem than landowners' septic tanks. Bathroom facilities are almost nonexistent along the river, he said, and sometimes as many as 1,200 people a day are fishing there.
"They're making a cesspool of the upper Bighorn corridor," he said. "It's just out of control with what's happening with human excrement."
Jim Darling, regional fisheries manager for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, disagreed. Darling said septic tanks are more of a problem than fishermen, especially if drainfields become saturated during flooding. But since the county is concerned about lack of toilet facilities, state officials will be working with the commissioners to resolve the issue, he said.
Farling said another factor to consider in determining river setback is wildlife. Construction too close to the river destroys habitat. A draft of permanent setback regulations includes a natural vegetation strip not less than 50 feet wide along all streams in Big Horn County.
Eye of the beholder
Whether development has gotten out of hand depends on who's talking. What anyone sees is a matter of perception as much as what's actually there. And what's there bothers people in different degrees.
Development along the river bothers Billings fisherman John Gibson a lot.
"I wish we'd had setbacks of 300 or 500 feet years ago," he said.
Gibson, president of the Montana Wildlife Federation, said he would enjoy his fishing experience much more if fishing lodges and big homes didn't dot the river.
"They're almost saying, 'You're not welcome here, this is ours,' " he said.
Michael Mastrangelo, an outfitter and owner of the Fort Smith Fly Shop, has mixed feelings about the setbacks.
"I really believe in individual rights," he said. "You should be able to do what you want on your own land as long as you don't impinge on other people's rights."
Mastrangelo said he's been fishing the Bighorn since 1985, and hasn't noticed a lot of development. Because so much of the land is in tribal hands, he really doesn't expect to. It's also a fairly remote area, with not a lot to do if you don't fish, he said.
"Really, none of these developments are offensive to me," Mastrangelo said. "If a lot of land was available and there were houses every 150 feet, that would be a different thing."
Les Zuck, president of Magic City Fly Fishers, said 300-foot setbacks would probably be a good idea, but wonders if those kinds of restrictions can be imposed.
"I'd hate to see one right on the river," he said. "But 300 feet sounds excessive to me."
Whatever the current state of development, now is the time to set the rules, said Janet Ellis of the Montana Audubon Society.
"When you start to notice it (development), it's probably too late," she said.
Darling applauds the county's efforts.
"We've looked at something like this for years, but there's such a diversity of ownership, we can't do anything," he said. "But the county can, and we will support them any way we can."