The Daily Inter Lake

State officials recently denied a petition to create a controlled groundwater area in Smith Valley, saying advocates failed to show that water availability is a problem in the area.

The proposed control area covered about 6,300 acres north of U.S. 2, between Northhill Road and Vonderheide Lane.

Had it been approved, it would have required developers and landowners in the area to apply for permits before drilling new wells and prove that adequate water was available.

Currently, household wells almost anywhere in Flathead County can be drilled essentially at will. The assumption is that water is available; consequently, homeowners don't need to demonstrate that new wells won't affect their neighbors' water supplies. Only if a problem arises after the wells are in use does the state get involved.

However, after several new subdivisions were proposed in the area in 2004, the Batavia-Kienas Homeowners Association petitioned the state to regulate new wells.

Water availability in the neighborhood always has been hit or miss - a state official described it as "a complete crap-shoot" two years ago - so some of the landowners wanted additional controls put in place to minimize any negative impacts from the new homes.

On Monday, hearing examiner Charles Brasen with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation denied the group's petition.

Brasen cited several problems with the proposal in his ruling. For example, he said the control area includes portions of two watersheds, meaning its boundaries "bear no meaningful hydrological relationship" to the areas that provide groundwater recharge.

Moreover, "the petitioners provided no credible scientific characterization of the aquifers, sources of recharge, watershed characteristics or hydrogeological conditions within the [control area]," Brasen wrote.

On the other hand, he concluded that annual groundwater recharge in the area substantially exceeds annual withdrawals, based on evidence provided by Kalispell hydrogeologist Marc Spratt, who was hired by opponents of the proposal.

Depending on a variety of factors, Spratt estimated that annual groundwater recharge in the proposed control area ranges from 3,769 to 11,779 acre-feet a year, compared to an estimated annual usage of 245 acre-feet a year.

"The hydrologic balance provides an approximation of the magnitudes of recharge, appropriation and use, and demonstrates that withdrawals don't exceed recharge," Brasen said in his ruling.

He noted as well that homeowners in the area haven't exhausted other, less-regulatory avenues for addressing water availability conflicts.

Currently, if existing homeowners think that their water supplies have been adversely affected by a new well in the area, they can file a formal complaint with the state. If the state determines that the new well is having an impact, the existing or senior water users can file an injunction against the new, junior water user.

However, Brasen said "no significant disputes regarding priority of water rights, amounts of groundwater [being used] … are in progress or under investigation within the proposed control area."

Based on these and other findings, he concluded that the petitioners hadn't adequately demonstrated that a controlled groundwater area was needed and denied their request.

The petitioners have 30 days in which to file objections to Brasen's ruling, after which a final ruling will be issued.

On the 'Net: Copies of the Smith Valley ruling are available from the DNRC Web site at www.dnrc.mt.gov

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com