Letter to Idaho State Legislators: Urgent Oversight Request on the Rathdrum Prairie PEL Study

The group sent this letter to the legislators with a cover email and a video on September 2, 2026.

Brian Rogers
No Huetter Bypass Group
Post Falls, Idaho

September 2, 2026

District 3

• Vito Barbieri, Idaho State Senate, VBar@house.idaho.gov
• Doug Okuniewicz, Idaho House of Representatives, DougO@senate.idaho.gov
• Jordan Redman, Idaho House of Representatives, JRedman@house.idaho.gov

District 4

• Ben Toews, Idaho State Senate, BToews@senate.idaho.gov
• Elaine Price, Idaho House of Representatives, EPrice@house.idaho.gov
• Joe Alfieri, Idaho House of Representatives, JAlfieri@house.idaho.gov

District 5

• Carl Bjerke, Idaho State Senate, CBjerke@senate.idaho.gov
• The Honorable Ron Mendive, Idaho House of Representatives, RMendive@house.idaho.gov
• The Honorable Tony Wisniewski, Idaho House of Representatives, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov

Re: Urgent Oversight Request – Deficient Road Planning, Budgeting, and Community Engagement by ITD District 1 and KMPO on the Rathdrum Prairie PEL Study and Related Projects; Need to Reduce Unnecessary Property Condemnations

Dear State Legislators for Kootenai County:

We write on behalf of the No Huetter Bypass Group and as an informed transportation analysis team to express deep concern over systemic deficiencies in road planning and budgeting across Idaho, most acutely in Kootenai County. The No Huetter Bypass Group has worked with the community for over five years to ensure the voices of 300+ members are heard.

Many matters between local Highway Districts, the Idaho Transportation Department, and even the Idaho Transportation Committees concern the community. These matters include overspending tax dollars on projects that have proved of little value and excessive land takings for “future use” or for ineffective use.

The Rathdrum Prairie Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study (ITIP Key Number 23349) and related capacity-expansion projects illustrate a pattern in which the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) District 1 and the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization (KMPO) have advanced high-impact alignments while systematically undervaluing lower-cost, lower-right-of-way alternatives that other states have successfully deployed.

Community members have provided extensive, documented feedback over five years, including technical analyses, cost comparisons using federal unit prices, Origin-Destination considerations, multi-element solution packages, and more. ITD has largely ignored this input, proceeding with preferred concepts despite legal and technical records supporting nearly the opposite course. Public comment processes have been constrained; multi-element feedback was prohibited during formative screening stages; and documented instances show that community comments appear to have been minimized or removed from the official record. This is inconsistent with the spirit and letter of federal public-involvement requirements under 23 U.S.C. § 128, 23 CFR Part 771, and FHWA Planning and Environmental Linkages guidance (see highways.dot.gov/laws-regulations).

Many of the projects under consideration do not resolve existing traffic problems; they exacerbate them and lock in long-term deficiencies. Forecast traffic-impact numbers frequently show Level of Service (LOS) remaining at or degrading to E (operating at or near capacity) or F (operating over capacity, breakdown of flow), as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) adopted by FHWA. Advancing designs that deliver only marginal, temporary, or degraded LOS improvements while requiring extensive new right-of-way violates the performance-based planning mandate of 23 U.S.C. § 150 and the federal preference for operational and access-management solutions that improve safety and mobility within existing corridors before expanding footprint.

Hypothetical annual maintenance could run $150,000–$350,000 for the existing two-lane road, $400,000–$900,000 for a four-lane arterial, and $900,000–$2.2 million or more for a highway plus the 2-lane road because of extra pavement, ramps, bridges, lighting, and winter operations required by higher federal design standards.

KMPO and ITD District 1 have declined to pursue technical assistance from the State Smart Transportation Initiative for modern, lower-impact approaches recommended by FHWA and proven in higher-density states. Access management, Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO), targeted intersection optimization, and strategic arterial connectivity have demonstrably reduced congestion and crash rates at far lower cost and with dramatically fewer land acquisitions than new controlled-access facilities. Idaho continues to default to capacity expansion and new alignments that maximize rather than minimize the need for negotiated purchases and, ultimately, eminent domain proceedings.

Transparency remains inadequate. Underlying model parameters, quantitative thresholds behind qualitative screening labels (“Best,” “Medium,” “Negative”), full cost build-ups, and design methodologies have not been openly shared in a form that permits independent verification—despite PEL and NEPA processes that require meaningful public access to the data supporting decisions. Independent estimates place the true cost of the Huetter-centric Alternative H near $800 million, far above earlier public figures near $300 million and now $564 million in the last public disclosure of the Rathdrum Prairie PEL study.

As a matter of sound federal practice, resources must first be directed to measures that improve safety, mobility, and reliability within the existing right-of-way. Such measures minimize or eliminate the need to acquire additional real-property interests by negotiation or condemnation. The Office of the Attorney General represents ITD in the few cases where formal condemnation is unavoidable; the goal of planning should be to make those instances truly rare. The current trajectory does the opposite.

Please send a letter, or make the call, to ITD District 1 and KMPO that says:

1. Keep Alternatives focused on improving US-95 and other existing-corridor work, including grade separation projects which were dismissed from the Rathdrum Prairie PEL study.
2. Do not recommend Alternative H (building a 4th northbound highway through Rathdrum Prairie), or combinations built on H, for NEPA.
3. Please request that ITD stop suggesting the concept of taking land for “future use.” The 4th Amendment does not intend for land to be taken from a United States taxpayer before a need is determined.

Thank you for your attention to this matter of both fiscal responsibility and community trust. We look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Brett Haney, Post Falls, Idaho
Don McGhie, Post Falls, Idaho
Ron McGhie, Post Falls, Idaho
Brian Rogers, Post Falls, Idaho