By Ryan Bentley, Daily News staff writer
Thursday, September, 28th, 2006 - Page Updated at 12:07:17 PM
Latah County commissioners Paul Kimmell, Jack Nelson and Tom Stroschein received a standing ovation Wednesday night after they denied Ralph Naylor Farms LLC’s request for a conditional use permit to mine sand, gravel and clay on its land north of Moscow.
Commissioners said Naylor Farms’ application and verbal testimony was too vague and did not meet the tenets of the comprehensive plan. They also said public testimony by local physicians, area professors and residents against the proposed mine provided them with thorough information to base their decision.
“The public opinion has been robust,” Kimmell said.
Naylor Farms wanted to mine granitic sand, gravel and clay on 382 acres of its land 1.5 miles north of Moscow. The company planned to mine the land in 40-acre sections, and it would have used an estimated 20 million gallons of water a year to limit dust from the mine and separate the soil from the rock.
It also would have served as the only local source for the sand and gravel needed to make concrete.
Commissioners said the company’s permit application and verbal testimony left too many questions unanswered and the proposal did not fall within the parameters of the county’s comprehensive plan.
Although mining is permitted within an agriculture/forestry zone, commissioners said the proposed Naylor Farms site was too close to Moscow and surrounding residents.
Opponents argued an open mine in the Moscow sub-basin could harm public health and safety, and could cause local property values to decline due to noise, dust, increased traffic and proximity. There were also concerns about the county and its residents having to regulate environmental stipulations.
“The (conditional use permit) lacks subsequent detail to consider its merits,” Kimmell said. “Throughout the hearing I questioned (Naylor Farms’) credibility.”
Brent Thomson, a member of the Naylor Farms board of directors, said the company expected the decision based on the public outcry over the proposed mine.
“We’re farmers, and we will look for another opportunity to arise,” he said. “We will keep looking at other (agricultural) features we could do on the farm.”
Kimmell said the permit application asked to mine 382 acres of Naylor Farms’ 636-acre property, but during testimony, Naylor representatives said they would mine anywhere from 28 to 125 acres.
“I’m just confused with their ultimate vision,” Kimmell said. “They were not forthcoming and not firm in what they wanted.”
Stroschein said there just wasn’t enough information about the effect on the area’s water supply, dust mitigation and public health.
“The burden of proof is on the applicant,” he said. “We have to look at the long term ... ”
Nelson said his hardened ideas on personal property rights have softened since hearing the company’s permit application.
He said he used to hold his property rights as supreme.
“We all want some protection,” he said. “But if we want protection we have to be willing to give up a few rights. Some rights are communal.”
Before making their final decision, commissioners commended Naylor Farms for attempting to venture out of the norm.
Stroschein said property laws are designed to protect people from each other, but change is coming. It may not be easy for people to grasp, but the Palouse may not always be covered in wheat.
Thomson said the commissioners’ decision could be the first death knell for the Palouse.
He said if farmers continue to struggle to stay ahead of low crop prices and high expenses, the Palouse’s golden, rolling hills could disappear.
“If farmers can’t try new things, their only option is to sell off 40 acres for home sites,” he said. “The Palouse cannot sustain an agriculture and housing system. They just don’t work well together.”
Thomson said he appreciates people’s desire to keep the Palouse the way it is, but if they aren’t open to change, they could destroy the lifestyle they love.
David Thompson, spokesman for Protect Our Water, a local water conservancy group, said opponents of the mine worked together and presented a strong case.
“It wasn’t against the Naylors as individuals,” Thompson said. “Any mine over an aquifer is just not a good idea.”
Sid Eder, an opponent of the mine, said concerned residents put together a great grass-roots effort.
Kimmell encouraged Naylor Farms to continue thinking of new ideas.
“They said one of their end goals was to grow grapes and start a winery,” Kimmell said. “I think that’s great. Bring it on.”
