Columbia Falls planners weigh future land-use map, septic risk and $28–30 million wastewater upgrade

Planning commissioners on the Columbia Falls Planning Commission reviewed a draft future land‑use map and accompanying vision and goals that staff say are intended to guide, not regulate, where the city wants growth to occur.

The presentation, led by consultants and staff, highlighted county polling and a septic‑risk GIS model. Nathan Dugan, who identified himself as executive director and submitted the polling packet to the commission, summarized a survey of 615 Flathead County voters (conducted Feb. 20–25, 2026 with a margin of error of ±4%) showing that roughly seven in 10 respondents believe the county lacks enough housing. Dugan said 54% of Columbia Falls respondents answered that they do not see a long‑term future in the county, and that 64% of voters countywide prioritize building more homes to reduce housing costs rather than limiting construction to protect neighborhood character.

Consultants walked commissioners through new map features staff propose adding to the 2019 growth policy: an explicit downtown designation around Nucleus Avenue (mixed commercial and upper‑story housing), a reclassified urban residential category that includes multifamily, a new innovation/flex district, and several "opportunity areas" where future change is expected. Consultant remarks emphasized that the future land‑use map is guidance for decision‑making, not zoning or a development plan.

Staff also presented a septic‑risk analysis prepared by the Flathead Basin Commission (now referred to in the presentation as the Western Montana Conservation Commission). The model identifies multiple high‑risk zones in and near Columbia Falls where aging or unpermitted septic systems, proximity to surface water and shallow groundwater increase environmental risk. Staff pointed to three specific areas: (1) Aluminum City north of town, where unpermitted septics are common; (2) areas east of the city near the river with aging septics and close proximity to surface water; and (3) low‑lying land along Highway 2 north of the airport with high groundwater.

City staff framed a proposed "infrastructure expansion area" on maps shown to the commission. They argued that showing an area in an adopted plan can make the city more competitive for state and federal grant funding to extend sewer service and help protect river water quality. Staff noted that building the next generation of wastewater treatment capacity will be costly — on the order of $28–30 million in upcoming planning estimates — and that expanding the tax base through commercial development along Highway 2 north of the airport could help spread those costs.

Public commenters praised parts of the draft plan and urged stronger environmental protections. Resident Russ Bookenich said he was worried about fiscal impacts on residents and alleged recent clearing by a private landowner in the Aluminum City area that has harmed wildlife corridors. Shirley Folkine, representing the Upper Flathead Neighborhood Association, urged the plan to include explicit setbacks from rivers, lakes and wetlands, to reference 500‑year floodplain considerations and to require preservation of existing vegetation in subdivision rules.

Commissioners debated what to include now in "vision and goals" versus what to defer to later "policies and actions." Several expressed concern that a recently passed state Senate bill (unnumbered in the discussion) allowing taller development in some commercial zones could expose the city to six‑story commercial buildings if the map broadly labels large tracts as commercial. Commissioners asked staff to consider form‑based setbacks, neighborhood commercial designations or other tools to protect downtown character while still accommodating growth in appropriate corridors.

After discussion, the commission asked staff to: add language addressing wildlife corridors and habitat to the environmental vision and goals; prepare a proposed assignment of future land uses for the identified infrastructure expansion area for the commission to review at the next meeting; and continue public outreach. Staff listed an outreach schedule on the record, including a plan commission review on April 9 and a public hearing tentatively set for May 14.

The commission took no formal votes on the land‑use plan at the meeting; the draft will be revised and returned with recommended changes for a future meeting or referral to the city council.