Valley County commissioners seek targeted Wildland-Urban Interface rules, mapping and dry hydrant expansion

Valley County commissioners discussed a package of wildfire-mitigation measures on Feb. 3, requesting staff and local stakeholders to produce on‑the‑ground hazard maps and draft ordinance language that would apply stronger construction and site standards only in the highest-risk areas.

The item grew out of recent work by the county's Fire Working Group and the lands committee, which recommended using a risk model to identify polygons of high, extreme or defensible hazard. County staff and fire stakeholders proposed using mapping tools such as LandTender/Xyloplan and SiloPlan to refine those hazard layers and to apply selective Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) overlays, rather than a single countywide standard.

Commissioners and fire officials said the goal is to keep development possible while reducing ember exposure and improving community defensibility. "When you look at what the probabilities of wildland urban interface issues are, the county's at a 98% chance every fire season," an emergency-management staff member told the board, citing the National Fire Council analysis. That, the staff member said, argues for targeted measures in the most vulnerable polygons rather than a blanket approach.

Staff recommended adopting portions of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (notably Chapter 5, which addresses building assemblies and materials) where the local risk model indicates the highest hazard. "I would recommend that we don't adopt the entire code because some of it is extremely restrictive," a staff member said, adding that selective adoption of the chapter on building materials could improve home survivability while being workable for local conditions.

Fire districts and county staff discussed practical mitigation steps being considered: requiring fire-department sign-off before the county issues approach/access permits, defining defensible-space/landscaping requirements for properties in extreme polygons, and allowing alternatives (for example, residential sprinklers or standpipes/dry hydrant systems where steep access makes truck response unsafe). Juan, a fire official who described dry-hydrant operations, explained that a dry hydrant is a permanent pipe intake placed in a pond or lake that allows fire apparatus to draft water without municipal pressure. Commissioners asked staff to identify likely dry-hydrant sites and funding sources.

The board also discussed enforcement and maintenance: commissioners asked how requirements such as defensible landscaping would be inspected and maintained over time. Staff noted several enforcement challenges and said follow-up policy work would need to clarify whether compliance is checked at final building inspection, managed via development agreements or enforced by homeowner associations or code enforcement.

Mapping and data tools were a major focus. Staff described demos of multiple platforms and said an initial countywide analysis with subscription tools could cost about $20,000 to $30,000; commissioners directed staff to try to secure demonstration access or grants and to seek budget authority before the June budget cycle so software could be procured if needed.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners directed staff to: refine the county's hazard polygons using the Fire Working Group's local knowledge; draft potential WUI overlay language and options (including targeted Chapter 5 material standards and defensible-space requirements); propose an approach-permit protocol requiring fire-district input; inventory locations for dry hydrants; and prepare cost estimates and a funding plan to bring back before the board for formal action.

The board scheduled further work on the item and asked staff to return with draft code language, maps and budget proposals for consideration before committing to any mandatory countywide rule changes.