The Montana Supreme Court has upheld a Flathead District Court ruling that rejected Citizens for a Better Flathead’s challenge to the county’s 2012 revised growth policy.

Citizens, a land-use watchdog group, sued the county in 2014, claiming the commissioners made sweeping changes in 2012 to the county’s 2007 growth policy without following mandatory procedures for making amendments and keeping the public involved in the changes.

The organization also questioned the growth policy’s property owners “bill of rights” that states when conflicts arise over land use, property rights take precedence over other rights. Citizens claimed the property rights provision violates the Montana Constitution and Growth Policy Act, and asked the court to void the commissioners’ approval of the growth policy amendments.

State Supreme Court Justice Beth Baker, delivering the high court’s opinion in a ruling issued Tuesday, said the Supreme Court agrees with the District Court “that the alleged irregularities do not invalidate the revised growth policy.

“Because the growth policy lacks the force of law, we likewise affirm the District Court’s refusal to strike from it what Citizens calls the ‘property rights trump card,’” the ruling stated.

Citizens alleged the individual private property owners “bill of rights” clause is vague and violates Citizens for a Better Flathead’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

Flathead District Judge Heidi Ulbricht said in her ruling last year that property rights language in the growth policy “was apparently motivated by an erroneous belief that growth policies have a ‘regulatory nature’ that was being increasingly emphasized by Montana courts,” but she added that “does not mean its content is inherently unreasonable or unconstitutional.”

The high court concurred with Ulbricht, noting the property rights clause “cannot require Flathead County to take any action, much less any action that conflicts with the Constitution.

“We hold that, because this clause lacks the force of law, it cannot ‘trump’ Citizens’ constitutional rights,” the Supreme Court ruling stated. “We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that this clause is not unconstitutional.”

The high court further stated the alleged procedural shortcomings in the county’s process for updating its growth policy don’t rise to the level of either a statutory or a constitutional violation.

“The county’s process was adequate to meet its obligations under the law,” the high court ruling stated.

Citizens for a Better Flathead issued a press release Wednesday in response to the Supreme Court ruling, stating the ruling “in essence challenges local residents and voters to secure stronger local regulations or statewide legislation if they wish to better ensure that local planning policies are based on meaningful consideration of facts and the well-being of the whole community, the environment and future generations.”

Citizens’ Executive Director Mayre Flowers said that while the organization is disappointed with the ruling, it heightens the importance of county residents advocating for stronger local policies regarding the consideration of facts and public input as the 2017 growth policy update commences.

“We believe that there is nothing more important than citizens being able to have an active role in how the Flathead grows, and we challenge the county to provide the public every opportunity to participate and not simply do the very minimum necessary by law,” Flowers said.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.