Sunday, December 22, 2024
43.0°F

County should get serious on dust problem

| December 18, 2008 10:00 PM

To the editor:

Re: County sets aside $100,000 for dusty roads, Dec. 4 Hungry Horse News.

The sub-headline on this story is either erroneous or false. At best it is misleading. “North Fork solution could be in the mix” is certainly not in this mixed up reportage.

This is a months old story hyped by the county to satisfy a fugitive dust abatement plan agreed to with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in order to avoid a steep fine levied for failing to comply with the Clean Air Act of Montana and the Administrative Rules of Montana. The $100,000 set aside is an application most suitable as an option for homeowners in residential areas. The plan has no practical applicability to the North Fork Road dust problem. Very few North Fork residents live adjacent to the road. The county knows this. And they know there is not a single mile, or even half-mile, along nearly 45 miles of unpaved surface with more than one home within 100 yards of the road. No sensible North Fork property owner would spend $1,750 to abate dust created primarily by tourist and recreational traffic.

According to the article, Dave Prunty, Flathead County Public Works Director, uses deceptive and unorthodox methods to calculate North Fork Road maintenance costs. For Mr. Prunty to imply that the few residents who live in the North Fork area should be financially accountable for traffic primarily generated by non-residents is disingenuous. The North Fork Road is minimally impacted by property owners and is heavily impacted by the general public.

Suggesting property owners should expend personal funds to reduce the dust problem on the North Fork Road is ludicrous. Using Prunty’s logic, North Fork property owners should be exempt from paying taxes for the public school system since there are virtually no school-age children living in the North Fork, or at least a low enough number to put lots of zeros in front of the .5 percent example cited by Prunty. Such an exemption would never be allowed, nor should it be expected, because that is not the model society uses for the public good. It should also not be a method or policy adopted by Flathead County when discussing taxes and populations relative to road maintenance costs.

The county needs to quit the posturing and get busy on serious initiatives designed to obtain public funding to address and resolve a publicly created dust problem.

Robert Grimaldi

Polebridge