Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Monitoring Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ravalli County Board of Health asks staff to research law after debate over suspending flood irrigation to pass groundwater monitoring
Summary
Board members discussed whether property owners can temporarily stop flood irrigation to improve septic groundwater monitoring results, and asked staff and counsel to review state case law and DEQ guidance before recommending policy changes.
Members of the Ravalli County Board of Health spent substantial time on June 11 debating whether temporarily suspending flood irrigation on neighboring or monitored parcels can legitimately be used to achieve passing groundwater monitoring results for on‑site sewage systems.
Board members described situations where irrigation was shut off to allow a monitoring pipe to pass and then later restarted, and cited a court case in which a judge ordered water restored to preserve water rights despite its effect on a septic mound. One board member said, “a judge is gonna look back at the record and say…this ditch easement…was not recorded on the deed,” stressing that documented abandonment of an irrigation ditch matters in later disputes.
The board discussed practical enforcement limits: it cannot compel other property owners to change irrigation on their own land, and voluntary payments between neighbors to suspend irrigation are outside county control. Members asked staff to look for state case law and DEQ guidance on whether the county can require deed‑recorded abandonment or other formal steps to lock in a year‑long suspension of irrigation. Several members urged that any new policy be grounded in existing law and cautioned about creating rules that a court might overturn.
No regulatory change was adopted at the meeting. Board direction: staff should research relevant case law and state DEQ rules, return with recommendations on documentation (for example, deed records or plats identifying abandonment), and present possible policy language for the board to consider. The board also noted its existing practice to require documentation showing permanent abandonment rather than mere temporary cessation of irrigation.
