Watershed overlay ordinance drowns

SANDPOINT — Bonner County commissioners effectively rejected an ordinance Wednesday that was drafted to protect surface water quality.

Commissioners Lewis Rich and Mike Nielsen deadlocked on whether to formally reject the ordinance, but ultimately agreed to remand the issue back to the Planning & Zoning Commission to develop a non-regulatory approach to surface water quality protections.

The remand motion passed 2-0. Commission Chairman Cornel Rasor was unable to attend Wednesday’s public hearing.

The ordinance entered the hearing with competing recommendations by two of the commission’s advisory boards. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval last year, but the Bonner County Property Rights Council lambasted it as a form of bureaucratic coercion.

Seven people testified in support of the ordinance and eight testified in opposition. Three people were neutral, although their remarks tilted in the direction of opposition.

The ordinance would have allowed a water district, homeowner association or other entity to petition the county for the establishment of an overlay district to safeguard surface water sources by regulating or prohibiting certain land uses such as junkyards and landfills.

The legislation was patterned after an existing wellhead overlay, which protects subsurface water sources.

The proposed ordinance was endorsed by the Idaho Conservation League, Tri-State Water Quality Council and Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper.

Supporters and opponents both argued the ordinance jeopardized something valuable that might not be recovered if harmed.

Ordinance advocates asserted that it’s costly and difficult to restore water quality once it becomes fouled. Opponents maintained the same could be said about property rights.

“It’s much easier to prevent pollution than to try and clean it up,” said Cocolalla resident Gail Bolen.

“This is an opportunity to make sure we are not a Superfund site in the future.”

But critics of the ordinance asserted that there are ample state and federal regulations protecting water quality and expressed concern that the ordinance would threaten private property rights.

“Once these things are lost, it’s practically impossible to get back,” said Doris Hunsaker.

Nielsen said the ordinance was unnecessarily duplicative and had a coercive aspect to it because those who violate the ordinance could be penalized.

“I do think this could amount to a regulatory taking,” Nielsen added.

Nielsen moved to reject the ordinance, but found no second from Rich.

“All of these other laws that are in place are reactive,” said Rich, who supports a proactive approach to guarding water quality.