Missoula County delays Fire Bucket Meadows hearing after neighbors raise groundwater and road concerns

Missoula County commissioners postponed the second hearing on the proposed Fire Bucket Meadows five‑lot subdivision to May 22 to allow a groundwater analysis to be completed and reviewed by county public health.

Patrick Swart, planner with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, told commissioners the county had delayed the first hearing on March 27 after public concerns about groundwater availability and asked the developer for additional information. "We're looking to delay the hearing again out till May 22 so we can get that groundwater analysis and have the folks over at Water Quality at Missoula Public Health take a look at that report," Swart said.

Why it matters: dozens of nearby landowners and professional reviewers told the commission that existing well yields in the area are low and variable, that septic systems and steep slopes could threaten groundwater, and that unresolved private‑road easements and RSID waivers could shift long‑term costs to neighbors.

Details from staff and developer representatives

Swart said PCI, the developer's agent, had contracted a hydrologist but the report was not finished. He asked developers to ensure the analysis reaches Missoula Public Health with enough lead time for review.

Elena Evans of the Missoula Valley Water Quality District said she could review the hydrologic report if she received it with adequate lead time. "A week is needed to review the material prior to a public meeting given other commitments," Evans said when commissioners discussed a proposed May 22 date; Swart and others asked that the developer submit the material by May 15 to allow that one‑week review window.

Ron Ewart, representing PCI, described the project and the geology. "Twenty acres, five lots, four acre average," Ewart said, and he emphasized that parts of the area sit in a TS (tertiary sedimentary) hydrogeologic unit where productive groundwater can be inconsistent. Ewart argued newer drilling and well construction techniques and use of cisterns can mitigate variability, saying, "There is adequate groundwater for single family homes at this low of a density," while acknowledging results can be location dependent.

Neighbors' concerns and evidence

Multiple neighbors described low or declining well yields, seasonal drops in water levels and reliance on cisterns. Kevin Curtis, a neighboring property owner, said well logs can overstate yield and warned about relying on cistern‑based fire suppression: "If we're running fire suppression off of a cistern that cistern is gonna run dry before a fire truck could ever even get there."

Donna Evison, who identified herself as the owner of Parcel 50B directly east of the proposed subdivision, said her well originally produced about 5 gallons per minute in 1994 and now produces about 3 gallons per minute; she described large seasonal water‑table fluctuations recorded in 2021–22 and said she maintains a 4,975‑gallon storage capacity for household and limited landscape use.

Jean Curtis, who said her mother holds an older water right, urged commissioners to require a hydrogeologic assessment that analyzes net depletion and potential adverse effects on prior appropriators under state water law. She cited past county experience at Mullen Trail, where residents said groundwater and flooding were underestimated, which later produced legal and management problems.

Other neighbors raised steep‑slope, septic and stormwater concerns and questioned whether three proposed minor subdivisions on adjacent tracts should instead be reviewed as one major subdivision so cumulative impacts are addressed.

Legal and easement issues

Public commenters and a land‑use planner pointed to a 1986 district court judgment (referenced in public comment) that, commenters said, described private road easements tied to adjacent owners and established conditions for forming an RSID. A public commenter said that by developing only Tract 48 now, the applicant may be avoiding major‑subdivision review.

Commission action and next steps

The Board did not take a final vote on the subdivision application at the meeting. The hearing was postponed to May 22 so the hydrologic report can be completed and reviewed by Missoula Public Health. Staff and public commenters requested that the developer send the groundwater analysis to Missoula Public Health well before May 22 (participants in the meeting suggested May 15) so staff will have time to review it. County staff also noted public comments would be added to the record.

The hearing will resume on May 22; commissioners and staff said further continuances were possible if the hydrologic analysis or public‑health review were not completed in time.

Ending

The May 22 continuation will focus on the contractor's groundwater analysis and Missoula Public Health's findings. Until those documents are provided and reviewed, commissioners did not proceed to a decision at the April meeting.