When children throw fits of pique, usually it’s because they
can’t have their way.
What resembles a grownups’ tantrum seems behind the threats to split
southeast Idaho’s Bannock County and create a 45th county, Marsh Valley County.
Like other secessionist movements, the complaint is that decisions favor
more populous northern parts of Bannock around Pocatello, with southern areas treated as
afterthoughts.
Blaine County is no stranger to this argument, but both the populous north
and agricultural south understand they are inextricably bound together for better or
worse. The good news is that it’s mostly better than worse.
Splitting a county for this sort of grievance hardly is good governance.
If Bannock County’s 1,100-plus square miles were reapportioned, the surviving Bannock
would be about 400 square miles and the new proposed Marsh Valley County would be 750
square miles.
Not only does a breakaway county face the rigors of establishing and
funding apparatus of new government services, but also the loss of diversity and stability
of a larger economic base.
A far larger western state, Arizona, manages its affairs with 15 counties
averaging 7,590 square miles each—seven times larger than Bannock County.
When Arizona last created two counties out of one—splitting Yuma
County and creating the new La Paz County—it involved problems of sheer size: Yuma
County’s original 10,000 square miles was larger than the entire state of Vermont and
difficult to serve.
The last effort to create a new Idaho county fizzled in 1978 after state
legislators refused support efforts to split the capital’s Ada County. Then, as now
with the talk in Bannock County, some Ada taxpayers claimed to be ignored. Wisely, cooler
heads calmed the impetuous secessionists.
Surely, at a time when Idaho enjoys such momentum and prosperity, wisdom
and common sense again will chill petulance in Bannock County before adults begin looking
like children.
