Don’t delete agriculture from subdivision review process

2013-03-04T08:00:00Z Don’t delete agriculture from subdivision review processGuest column by NEVA HASSANEIN
March 04, 2013 8:00 am  • 

Montana’s heritage is rooted in working farms and ranches, and so is our future. Agriculture is woven into the fabric of our economy, culture and landscape. Of course, agriculture also provides the food we all need to survive.

Given agriculture’s importance, it is downright shocking that Senate Bill 147 is making its way through the Montana Legislature. If passed, this bill will erode agriculture’s long-term viability, and it will take away local control over land-use decisions. Here’s why this bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Edward Buttrey of Great Falls, is so dangerous.

Under current law, when a developer proposes a subdivision, local governments must look at how it might impact things like taxation, the natural environment and public safety. Then, if impacts are documented, they have to be addressed before the development occurs. The impact that a subdivision might have on agriculture is one of those criteria that must be considered.

SB147 would change that by deleting agriculture from the review process. Instead, subdivisions would only be reviewed for their impact on “adjacent agricultural operations.” In other words, only the impact on neighbors would be considered. The larger context of agriculture would never even be looked at, much less addressed. That’s a drastic difference.

Contrary to claims made by the Realtors and builders who are backing SB147, it flies in the face of the original intent of the state’s subdivision law. In 1975, the crafters of the law clearly wanted to ensure that agricultural land was not lost to unchecked development. The hearing minutes from that time express the sponsor’s alarm over the changes he had seen near his home in Gallatin County, where, he said, “one has to drive but a short distance to see some of the best agricultural land covered by houses and subdivisions.” The bill’s sponsor was motivated by what he called “the tragic intrusion on the agriculture land base of Montana.”

With that foresight decades ago, the state created a process by which local governments would address the public interest, but also retain landowners’ rights to sell and develop their land. Local elected officials are the closest to the people they represent. But they are not allowed to act in ways that are arbitrary. As a result, there is great potential for creative solutions that preserve both private property rights and agricultural land for the common good.

One example of successful collaboration is Blue Heron Estates in the Grass Valley outside of Missoula. The development was proposed on 75 acres of prime agricultural soil with good access to an irrigation ditch. The developer originally wanted to put 15 five-acre lots across the entire area. But he was willing to work with citizen groups concerned about the loss of such fertile ground. In the end, they came up with a design that pleased everyone. The developer got the 15 lots he wanted, and 30 acres of farmland and 21 acres of critical habitat were protected.

This kind of creativity and meaningful dialogue won’t be possible if SB147 passes. Cities and counties will not even be able to consider the broader impacts development might have on agriculture. This is short-sighted thinking.

Communities need to be able to plan for our agricultural future. Farmland is attractive for development because it is usually flat, well drained and often located near cities and towns. But fertile soils are rare, and quality farmland is irreplaceable. Once it is gone, it’s gone for good.

SB147 disregards the long-term benefits agriculture provides our economy and our communities. Working farms and ranches reflect Montanans’ deep connection to the land and our shared sense of place. Well-managed agricultural lands preserve water quality and provide wildlife habitat. Agriculture remains Montana’s number one industry. Also, many farmers and ranchers are seizing new economic opportunities from the growing consumer demand for local and regional foods. Whatever the future may bring, we will need and want working farms and ranches.

To eat is to engage in agriculture. We all have a stake in the outcome of this debate, and we owe it to future generations to oppose SB147. Don’t let the Montana Legislature delete agriculture. Please speak up for farms and urge your representative to vote no on SB147.

Neva Hassanein of Missoula specializes in the study of contemporary food and agriculture systems.

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(3) Comments

  1. Neva Hassanein
    Report Abuse
    Neva Hassanein - March 12, 2013 6:08 pm
    Mr. Zim, I appreciate that you took the time to read my piece. Yet, you may be engaging in a bit of revisionist history. Please see this link to find direct quotes from the developer regarding this project.
  2. Bob Zim 23
    Report Abuse
    Bob Zim 23 - March 11, 2013 6:26 pm
    Great wordsmithing on the Blue Heron Estates project Neva. Too bad it isn't true. As the real estate agent representing the project I will tell you quite honestly that the intent was to do the 15 five acre lots until FEMA came forward and changed the flood plan. It rendered the original plan ineffective and in need of change. It is sadly pathetic that your group has made this out to be some a great revelation by the developer. That he was so happy to work with your group is a lie.After the flood plain changed so did the plan in accordance to what was now allowable.. With the change came 15 one+ acre sites. The rest was deemed in the flood plain. The developer did not get the fifteen five ace lots that he wanted. Oh and by the way there are no irrigation rights to that property. The previous owner never transferred them with the sale rendering it unusable for agriculture at this time.
  3. Drummer
    Report Abuse
    Drummer - March 04, 2013 8:45 pm
    Neva, the Office of Planning & Grants, and the County Commissioners who are leading this charge and pushing to seize farmland through control, are violating Constitutional rights of all landowners. It sounds quite flowery in Neva's presentation, however, the Truth is the opposite of the picture that she presents. Farmers are concerned about the environment, and will make the correct decisions about their property. That is just the issue at hand....IT IS THE FARMERS AND RANCHERS PROPERTY to do with as they please or need in order to survive in today's stifling climate of rules and regulations. VOTE TO PROTECT RANCHERS FROM OPPRESSIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT....VOTE TO SUPPORT SB 147.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick