I attended the Flathead County commissioners’ public hearing on the expansion of the Egan Slough Zoning District. The overwhelming number of citizens present at the hearing supported the expansion of the zoning district.

Only two people objected, and one of them was Mr. Lew Weaver, owner of the Montana Artesian Water Co., who proposes a water bottling plant in this agricultural area.

I was disappointed that Mr. Lew Weaver did not speak for himself, but had his attorney, John Dudis, speak for him. Weaver’s attorney stated that this zoning expansion is considered a taking of his property and he will seek judicial recourse in order to prevent it. A veiled threat.

Apparently, Commissioner Phil Mitchell is conflicted between protecting one individual’s property rights and a publicly initiated proposal request with the majority support of the landowners in the Egan Slough Zoning District, who signed the petition to add territory to the existing zoning. We do not know what is in Commissioner Mitchell’s mind, but hope he is on the side of the landowners.

The Constitution of the state of Montana in Article II (Declaration of Rights), Section I, states “All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted for the good of the whole.”

When it comes to a common pool resource such as groundwater, how can there be any question as to the property rights of one person vs. the property rights of the majority? The majority’s inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment by expanding the Egan Slough Zoning District is to protect the values and agricultural nature of their neighborhood, including the groundwater they depend on.

Who among us has unlimited property rights? For instance, I do not have the right to run my sewer pipe into the stream that runs by my house. If you live in the city, or subdivision you can list many rules, regulations and covenants that limit your property rights. Mr. Weaver’s property rights are limited.

Article IX (Environment and Natural Resources), Section III (Water Rights), says that the use of all water that is now and may hereafter be appropriated for sale, rent, distribution, or other beneficial use, shall be held to be a public use and that all surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people. The water is the property of the state, and Mr. Weaver’s proposed water-bottling plant may appropriate the water as long as it is for a beneficial use and does not threaten other people’s artesian water supply.

So who determines if the groundwater to be extracted will have adverse effects on the quantity and quality of the remaining water? Who knows if the recharge rate would be enough to maintain the groundwater level in all wells? What is the projected long-term pattern of precipitation in the Flathead? How many more wells will be drilled to keep up with the valley’s growth?

The answer to these questions must be environmentally conservative because groundwater is a common-pool resource and the rules about threatening that resource must be clear and easily enforceable. If such information is not available then there is no basis for approving Weaver’s request to put in a water-bottling plant. I personally do not think Mr. Weaver’s proposed water-bottling plant is for the public good but for his own personal profit.

Expanding the Egan Slough Zoning District should be a slam dunk. Why are the county commissioners undecided? As my friend Sally said, “We will no longer be The Last Best Place. We’ll just be the Last.

Brosten is a resident of Bigfork.