Have you heard of the term “splits”?
A “split” may sound like a small decision on a single piece of land, but across Canyon County, these choices are transforming our rural landscape one parcel at a time. A “split” is when a larger farm or rural parcel is divided into smaller ones, often for homes, without going through a full subdivision process. Each split might sound minor, but together they add up to hundreds of new houses, more traffic on country roads, and less working farmland. Lot splits and subdivisions both play a role in growth, but they’re not the same, and understanding that difference is key if we want to protect our roads, our water, and our way of life.
The problem isn’t one split here or there. The problem comes when splits are used over and over again, across many properties, without a bigger plan. Each new driveway adds another conflict point on a rural road. Each new house adds more vehicles during the morning and evening commute. Each new well and septic system adds more demand on our aquifers and more pressure on groundwater quality. None of those impacts may be huge on their own, but they stack up. Over time, repeated lot splits can create scattered, leap‑frog development that feels like a subdivision in everything but name.
Subdivisions, by contrast, take more time and planning, but they encourage smarter, more strategic growth. When land goes through a subdivision process, the developer is required to think beyond the property lines and address things like street layout, access and safety, utilities, drainage, and long‑term impacts. There are standards for road widths, emergency access, and connections to existing networks. There are reviews of stormwater and flood issues, so neighbors downstream aren’t surprised later. There are expectations around water, sewer, or septic design so that systems don’t fail and contaminate wells.
That extra planning can be the difference between a neighborhood that works and one that causes headaches for decades. With a subdivision, we can ask critical questions upfront:
Are the roads built to handle the traffic, including farm equipment and school buses?
Is there safe access for fire trucks and ambulances?
How will drainage be handled during heavy rain or snowmelt?
Is there a plan for sidewalks, pathways, or safe school routes where appropriate?
Subdivisions also help clarify who pays for what. When growth happens through a formal process, it is easier to require developers to help shoulder the costs of new infrastructure rather than shifting those costs to existing taxpayers later. That might mean paying to upgrade an intersection, extend a water line, or build internal roads to county standards. Without that framework, we risk ending up in a situation where growth comes first and the bill comes later and it often lands in the laps of long‑time residents who didn’t ask for that growth in the first place.
None of this means that every split is bad or that every subdivision is perfect. A rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all approach can put unnecessary burdens on families and small landowners who simply want to make reasonable decisions about their property. There are times when a simple split makes far more sense than forcing someone into a complex subdivision process designed for larger developments. The challenge is not to eliminate splits, but to make sure they are used in a way that doesn’t undermine our long‑term planning and infrastructure.
That’s why I believe in a balanced approach. We shouldn’t overcomplicate small property decisions or make people jump through expensive hoops for very limited, low‑impact changes. At the same time, we cannot afford unplanned, piece‑by‑piece growth that strains our roads, overburdens our schools, and erodes our rural character. Growth is coming to Canyon County (we see it in the new rooftops, the busy intersections, and the pressure on farmland). As a commissioner, the job isn’t to pretend we can stop it; our job is to manage it so that it strengthens our communities instead of weakening them.
A balanced approach asks a simple question each time land is divided: Is this still a small, individual decision, or has it reached the point where the impacts look like a subdivision and need subdivision‑level review? If the answer is that the impacts are bigger where there are more houses, more trips on the roads, more demand on services, then it’s fair to expect more planning up front. That kind of thoughtful threshold is how we respect property rights while also respecting neighbors, taxpayers, and the next generation.
If elected as a Canyon County Commissioner, I will bring that mindset to every conversation about lot splits and subdivisions. I will work with the other commissioners, county staff, city officials, and the experts at the table (engineers, planners, emergency responders, farmers, etc.) to ensure that our policies make sense on the ground and not just on paper. That means looking closely at how repeated splits are affecting specific roads and areas, listening to residents who live with the consequences, and adjusting our ordinances where they clearly aren’t keeping up with real‑world growth.
Transparency will be a core part of this work. Too often, residents feel blindsided when new homes appear in what they thought would stay open and rural, or when traffic suddenly increases on a once‑quiet route. I’ll push to make the process more understandable so people can see what’s being proposed and when decisions are being made. Notices should be clear and timely. Meetings and hearings should be accessible, not just in theory but in practice. And when decisions are made, the reasoning should be explained in plain language, not just legal terms.
Most importantly, I will not hesitate to say “no” to growth that chips away at our rural character instead of strengthening it. That doesn’t mean saying no to every proposal. It means saying no when a pattern of splits is clearly turning a farming area into a patchwork of driveways and rooftops with no plan for roads, safety, or water. It means saying no when a development adds burdens that existing taxpayers will be stuck paying for down the road. It means saying no when the long‑term costs to our infrastructure and our farms outweigh the short‑term gains.
