Managing The Sprawl Rathdrum Prairie Project Attempts To Keep Tabs On The Region’S Explosive Growth

The Rathdrum Prairie is a land confused.

Its 100 square miles represent Kootenai County’s growth corridor and all area cities have etched out claims.

Deciding how that growth will proceed while juggling the interests of farmers and developers, and protecting the area’s main drinking source is a daunting task.

Welcome to the Rathdrum Prairie Project.

Karen Marcotte was hired to help provide solutions based on three basic principles: respecting the rights of land owners; protecting the Rathdrum-Spokane Valley aquifer; and acknowledging that there will be growth on the prairie.

“I see my job as explaining the tools that are available to the community,” Marcotte said. “The community still makes the selection for what they feel is best for the prairie.”

Marcotte has worked in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and can explain how management tools have worked in those places, and what choices exist.

Choices are just what Vonnie Satchwell wants for the 1,000 acres she owns with her son-in-law.

Their land sits directly in the middle of the prairie and within the areas of impact for both Rathdrum and Post Falls. It also falls under the development rules of Kootenai County.

Because the land also rests over the aquifer, the Satchwells must abide by the Panhandle Health District’s rule that land parcels be no smaller than five acres with one septic tank.

“What it boils down to is, it’s not much fun farming anymore,” Satchwell said. “There is going to be growth regardless of what we do. But I’d rather see planned growth than haphazard.”

Bob Potter agrees. The president of the local job recruiting agency Jobs Plus wants some guidelines so the prairie doesn’t end up with a myriad of different uses.

“I don’t want the prairie to look like the San Fernando Valley in Southern California,” Potter said. “It developed into a mess of strip malls, low-end apartments and houses.”

“I just want to end up with something we are proud of…and shows we knew what we were doing.”

The first task of the committee has been to study land-use policies and try to fix areas where rules conflict.

The next phase, which could start in May and cost about $60,000, will be to decide which tools should guide the planing.

One of the goals for some cities is to provide open space.

The problem, Satchwell said, is that many people see an open field and think it could easily become a park.

“If people in cities want open space, I think they need to be prepared to pay for it,” she said.

Marcotte agreed, saying that those open fields most often represent farming, which is a business.

The final plan won’t work if it keeps farmers from their livelihoods, Marcotte said.

Another absolute is the protection of the aquifer. However, the five-acre rule - which was put in place to keep the aquifer safe - has by default become a planning tool.

“Now the prairie is starting to look like a checker board of five-acre parcels,” Marcotte said.

One possible solution is cluster housing. That could both eliminate the patchwork and further protect the aquifer, she said.

Under that plan, developers would cluster houses to one area of a development and leave open space for the rest.

Instead of multiple septic systems, the project could have a self-contained system, or a temporary land application system until the subdivision could be hooked into a city’s sewer system.

One major tool that has worked in high-growth areas in New Mexico, California and Colorado is the selling of development rights.

The Idaho Legislature signed a law last year which has a provision allowing the sale of development rights.

“It can keep developments near town, keep farmers farming and it allows developers to meet the need for growth,” Marcotte said.

If a farmer had 100 acres on the prairie, he or she could sell 20, five-acre parcels - or sell the development rights.

If a developer has land near city services but wants to build more houses than the five-acre rule allows, he or she could then buy - at full-market value - development rights from the farmer.

The farmer can pocket the money and continue farming. But the farm land must be farmed or left open for perpetuity, thus preserving agricultural land.

The developer then would be able to build more homes near a city, which is where most planners want the growth to occur.

“It’s one of the tools and probably most effective if used in a combination with other tools,” Marcotte said. “There really is no silver bullet in developing.”

The farmer still could sell the land after selling the development rights, but the buyer would be bound to keep farming or leave the land open.

Even though that tool currently is available, Marcotte said she doesn’t know of any farmer who has taken advantage.

One drawback would be that the county would have to start keeping a database to track the sale of development rights.

“If the community doesn’t want to use that tool, we won’t push it on them,” Marcotte said. “We just want the menu out there for them to think about.”