Rating:

5.0 (3 votes)

A Montana landowner says that local governments are illegally using "wildlands urban interface" designations to squelch development, and on Thursday, she told lawmakers in Helena what's happening in her county.

Niki Sardot owns 1,000 acres in the Wildland Urban Interface in Ravalli and Missoula Counties, and she has seen her property values drop dramatically, so she is asking the MT Environmental Quality Council to revisit Senate Bill 131, which gave counties the authority to designate lands as "wildland urban interface."

Sardot said, "It's the worst thing to happen to the state of Montana and it's a taking, when a federal regulation takes over 30% of the value from a landowner that's a taking, and this is a big one."

MT State Representative Chas Vincent of Libby said, "The legislation was in no way meant to be used as a tool for what has been deemed today in this committee as "back-door zoning'."

Representative Vincent helped carry the bill, and he says that by designating land as wildland urban interface it allows the state to tap into federal funds. The money would then be used to help reduce fire risk in those areas.

But for Sardot, the unintended consequences of the legislation have her outraged.

She said, "Please look at what our county has done. The pink area... it has placed 244,000 acres or 65% of the private property in the wildlands urban interface. Talking to Senator Shockley before this meeting, he thought it was in the forest - no. It's from the river bottom up to the forest. That is what they have done to us. This is back-door zoning." Sardot hopes the Council will revisit the legislation and tighten it up.

Rep. Vincent said, "If it is being used a tool for zoning and regulatory takings of private property rights, then I can see why her statements would be applicable. That was not the intent of the legislation, this was not to be used as a map to prohibit development in areas."

Vincent says if counties are misinterpreting the bill, he is willing to look into the matter.

Sardot says if lawmakers won't tighten up the bill, she will consider filing a lawsuit against the state.

WEB EXTRA: here is the text of SB 131 from the Montana legislative website:

SB 131: Require DNRC to designate wildland-urban interface

AN ACT REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION TO DESIGNATE THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE PARCELS IN EACH COUNTY USING CERTAIN CRITERIA; REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN MAPS OF THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE PARCELS; REQUIRING THE USE OF A COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN IF ONE HAS BEEN ADOPTED; PROHIBITING ADDITIONAL OR INCREASED FEES IF LOCATION IN A WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE IS THE ONLY CRITERIA; PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. Designation of wildland-urban interface parcels. (1) Prior to January 1, 2012, and subject to the provisions of this section, the department shall identify the parcels of property in the state that are considered to be wildland-urban interface parcels, delineate those parcels on maps, and ensure that the maps and information on the maps is available to the public, local governing bodies, and governmental fire agencies organized under Title 7, chapter 33.

(2) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), the department shall identify a county's wildland-urban interface parcels based on the wildland-urban interface designation developed as part of the county's completion of a community wildfire protection plan under 16 U.S.C. 6501, et seq., the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

(b) If a community wildfire protection plan has not been adopted, the department shall:

(i) provide notice to the county governing body that the department intends to designate the wildland-urban interface within the county's jurisdictional boundary;

(ii) allow up to 18 months for the county to complete and adopt a community wildfire protection plan if a county had begun the process of developing a plan prior to receiving the notice from the department under subsection (2)(b)(i);

(iii) review and consider the analysis of the potential for fire and wildland fire required in 76-1-601(3)(j) of the county's growth policy, if a growth policy has been adopted;

(iv) consult with the county governing body and governmental fire agencies organized under Title 7, chapter 33, regarding appropriate parcels to designate as wildland-urban interface parcels; and

(v) clearly identify and make available to the county governing body and governmental fire agencies the criteria the department intends to use in designating parcels.

(3) Location of a property within the wildland-urban interface designated under this section may not be the sole reason for assessing additional fire protection fees, impact fees, or other fees against the property.

(4) The department shall report its progress in designating wildland-urban interface parcels to an appropriate interim legislative committee assigned to study wildland fire suppression or to the environmental quality council.

(5) The department shall review each county's wildland-urban interface designation every 5 years, make changes as necessary, and maintain accurate maps and other identifying information.

Section 2. Appropriation. There is appropriated to the department of natural resources and conservation $147,327 in fiscal year 2010 and $140,527 in fiscal year 2011 from federal special revenue for the purpose of [this act] only. If the department does not receive federal funds for this purpose, the department shall proceed with the requirements of [this act] to the extent possible using existing resources.

Section 3. Codification instruction. [Section 1] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 76, chapter 13, part 1, and the provisions of Title 76, chapter 13, part 1, apply to [section 1].

Section 4. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.

- END -