Libby council reopens debate on Flower Creek debris pile, votes to send comment to NRDP

The Libby City Council on a 3–2 vote agreed to reopen discussion of the Flower Creek spoil (debris) pile and to submit a comment to the Natural Resource Damage Program (NRDP) urging that the city own any application and require hydrology and geotechnical borings as part of initial study work.

The motion, seconded and approved after extended public comment, came amid competing views over whether the pile should be left in place or removed and whether a proposed recreational parking plan would be appropriate above the city’s watershed. The council’s action directs staff to prepare a targeted comment for the NRDP application record and to prioritize studies that assess potential risks to the municipal water supply.

Why it matters: Public commenters told the council they had observed an oil sheen and other contaminants seeping from the hills above the city’s water source, and they urged caution before allowing any development tied to a grant application. Council members said a phased approach that funds a hydrology and geotechnical study first would produce data needed to make an informed decision without obligating city funds to removal or redevelopment.

Public testimony was direct and critical. Jennifer Nelson (1026 Washington) told the council the spoil pile included concrete, rags and evidence of machine servicing, and warned, “If you permit this grant and they do remove the spoils pile you no longer will have any control up there.” Her remarks pressed the council to insist on testing and to consider taking ownership of any application so the city retains decision authority.

Council members debated trade-offs: some said the site is stable and opposed reopening work there; others said the hydrology study would produce data on water-quality risk and materials in the pile. City staff and councilors noted the NRDP program can be phased: phase one could fund studies (estimated at about $250,000 in examples cited) and, if a larger remediation or redevelopment followed, subsequent funding cycles would be required.

Sam Sykes, who helped summarize communications with the NRDP administrator, said that if the grant is restructured to phase one as a study the project could proceed more quickly in this cycle; if the application is substantially changed it may require a renewed public comment period and push consideration into the next multi-year cycle. “If phase one goes through and we find out we couldn’t do it for that amount of money because we’d have to hire engineers that comes out at $250,000, at that point it would just stop,” Sykes said, noting the program’s phased review process.

Outcome and next steps: The council vote to reopen the topic and to submit a comment letter passed; staff will draft a comment that emphasizes watershed protection, requests specific geotechnical/hydrology work in phase one, and explores city ownership of the application. Councilors said they will circulate a draft comment for review before final submission.

The council’s action does not commit city funds to removal or redevelopment; rather, it requests technical study and reserves the city’s right to decide future steps depending on the studies’ findings.