County Erosion Rule Criticized As Excessive Year-Old Ordinance Aims To Control Water Runoff In High-Risk Areas

Ed O’Hara just wanted to clear a field to put in a baseball diamond for his kids and their friends.

He was shocked to learn that he would have to come up with a site-disturbance plan to control storm-water runoff from the field, which is nowhere near a body of water.

Although that requirement later was waived by the county, the experience fueled O’Hara’s opposition to a year-old Kootenai County law that governs construction.

“The county has given itself too much power through this ordinance,” he said.

O’Hara and others are trying to get the law overturned or amended.

County commissioners have agreed to meet with a committee of residents and business owners this week to discuss their complaints with the law.

“What we’re here for is to make our codes user-friendly and protect property rights so people can use their property as they see fit, so long as they don’t impair or impede the right of someone else to do the same,” Commissioner Ron Rankin said.

The county’s site-disturbance ordinance went into effect in January 1997, after 18 months of work by a broad-based committee. The law is designed to control erosion and storm-water runoff.

The law requires that anyone planning to grade for construction file an application for a site disturbance permit. Construction on moderate- and high-risk sites must have a plan that describes how erosion and runoff will be controlled on the site. For high-risk sites, the builder must hire a design professional.

O’Hara’s site was considered high-risk primarily because of the size of the area that was going to be graded for the ball field.

“There needs to be stipulations around the lakes, rivers or streams, but that should be in the form of a guideline - not this big, huge catchall ordinance that everyone in Kootenai County falls into,” O’Hara said.

The law also requires a performance bond for the site-disturbance plan on moderate- to high-risk sites that’s 150 percent of the estimated cost to complete the plan.

Critics see the provisions as excessive.

Dean Haagenson, owner of Contractors Northwest, believes the best solution would be to replace the ordinance with a county engineer who could suggest practical solutions for construction sites with a risk of runoff problems.

“Why should the homeowner, who’s already struggling to figure out how to qualify to build this home, have to pay another $3,000” for a site-disturbance study, Haagenson asked.

According to the county planning department, only 20 percent of the people or businesses who get county building permits have had to hire a design professional. Another 10 percent have been able to design their own plans with the county’s help, said Cheri Howell, planning director.

“If they’re low risk, we don’t ask them to do anything,” Howell said. “That’s about 70 percent.”

The county has had three people appeal the site-disturbance requirements, and one was successful. Most complaints, Howell said, concern the cost of meeting the law’s provisions.

As for how effective the law has been, “it’s a little early to tell,” Howell said. “This is a long-term commitment to the community to protect water quality. It’s going to take a little time for us to see the benefits.”

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: WHAT’S NEXT Kootenai County Commissioners have agreed to meet with a committee of residents and business owners this week to discuss complaints about the site-disturbance ordinance.