Letters to the Editor

Gravel pit wars

Perhaps we adults need to do more serious, analytical thinking in regard to the ongoing gravel pit "wars", in place of the rather mindless emotional, selfish power play and strategizing that has been going on.

Let's face some fundamental truths: gravel is where gravel is; it isn't where it isn't. The same people that whine about dust also want paved roads which are built on a gravel base. Houses are constructed on concrete foundations of which primary ingredients are sand and a specific type of gravel. Nice smooth, round gravel is found near riverbeds or previous historic river channels. If we try to create gravel by crushing shale from mountain sides we create sharp-edged arrowhead shaped stones that puncture tires. . bad for roads or driveways. Gravel is heavy, expensive to transport and requires trucks that put stress on highways. Therefore gravel should be obtained as close as possible to the point of use. Certain phases of the production may result in a degree of inconvenience or annoyance, but are necessary.

Many things in life are unappealing such as sewage treatment, sounds of traffic, industrial processing, etc. But this is the world in which we live and maybe we should just accept it. The same people that complain bitterly about their little annoyances also tend to cry over loss of property values supposedly resulting from these situations. They then demand that land be left as open space with unobstructed views provided for their enjoyment. And who pays for that . . . other property owners? the neighbors? Is there something wrong with this picture? Let's analyze it critically, analytically, realistically. As compensation, an expired gravel pit eventually provides an expanse of open space often with lakes and interesting terrain which can be beautifully landscaped and used for homes and recreation.

Gravel is where it is. It does not stop because of a zoning line on the map. Proper planning would include advance gravel exploration and then zone accordingly. Initial time and costs are involved, but this would be far better than burying our gravel under shopping malls and subdivisions, making it inaccessible forever. This would constitute a tremendous waste of an essential, somewhat limited natural resource.

These matters need to be addressed by our Planning and Zoning office during the planning stages. They might also throw light and a different perspective on current controversy over existing gravel pits needed for ongoing supply during home and highway construction. The draft plan indicates these occupations are currently primary sources of income for the County.

Clarice Ryan

Bigfork