04/19/2026 Letter to the BOCC
April 19, 2026
Frank Schwartz
3239 Highway 71
Cambridge, Idaho 83610
Washington County Board of County Commissioners
256 E. Court Street
Weiser, Idaho 83672
Dear Commissioners,
Washington County residents and the Commissioners should pay close attention to Prosecutor True Pearce’s recent public comments about 20-acre splits in A1 land, because the written record shows a serious inconsistency between what was argued in 2025 and what is now being said publicly in 2026.
At the April 13, 2026 commissioners meeting, Pearce said: “There’s some sort of a misconception that we allow unlimited 20-acre splits in the county… that is not what the code says. It is not what it’s ever said. We don’t allow it.” That is a sweeping statement. It tells the public not only that unlimited 20-acre residential splitting is not allowed now, but that it has never been allowed under the code.
The problem is that this is, in substance, the same conclusion reached years earlier in Christopher Meyer’s August 27, 2021 memorandum.
In the Meyer memo dated August 27, 2021, Meyer framed the issue directly: whether Washington County Code §§ 5-4-1(B)(1) and 5-4-1(B)(3) allow “a landowner to divide A1-zoned agricultural property into an unlimited number of 20-acre lots, which may contain one single-family residence per approved lot” (Meyer Memo, p. 2). Meyer’s answer was equally direct: “I conclude that this is not permissible under the County’s zoning ordinance” (Meyer Memo, p. 2). Later, Meyer restated the point even more plainly: “WCC § 5-4-1(B)(1) and 5-4-1(B)(3) do not allow a landowner to divide his or her property into an unlimited number of 20-acre parcels and then place a house on each one” (Meyer Memo, p. 5).
That was the legal conclusion on the table in 2021. It was not vague. It was not implied. It was explicit.
Then came Pearce’s own memorandum. In his memo dated April 7, 2025, Pearce framed one of the central issues this way: “According to the plain language of WCC §§ 5-4-1(B)(1) and 5-4-
1(B)(3), are owners of A1 parcels that are larger than 20 acres permitted construct a residential dwelling on their land?” (Pearce Memo, p. 2; filed exhibit PDF p. 6). By the conclusions section, Pearce answered that question affirmatively and directly: “Owners of A1 parcels that have twenty or more acres of lot size are entitled to build one single-family residence, as well as farm and ranch houses and other structures” (Pearce Memo, p. 12; filed exhibit PDF p. 16). He also advised the County to “immediately cease its historical practice(s) regarding building permits for A1 parcels and instead begin following the provisions of WCC § 3-1-3 and 5-4-1 as they are written” (Pearce Memo, p. 13; filed exhibit PDF p. 17)
That was not a minor aside. Pearce was affirmatively stating that owners of 20-acre A1 parcels are entitled to a residential building right. It was a legal position advanced in direct tension with Meyer’s earlier conclusion.
Pearce then sought outside confirmation of that interpretation. In his cover letter dated May 5, 2025, Pearce told the commissioners that his office had spent “hundreds of hours” on the issue and that, “[t]o ensure full clarity and independent confirmation of our interpretation, I retained Holland & Hart LLP” (Pearce cover letter, p. 1). He further told the Board that Holland & Hart concluded “that our legal interpretation of the Code is correct, well-reasoned, and consistent with Idaho law” (Pearce cover letter, p. 1).
Holland & Hart’s own opinion, also dated May 5, 2025, confirmed that they were validating Pearce’s memo, not Meyer’s. Their letter says Pearce had asked for “independent, third-party review” of his 2025 memorandum and that, in their opinion, Pearce’s memo “provides a correct interpretation of the Code” (Holland & Hart Memo, p. 1). They summarized Pearce’s memo as concluding that “the Code clearly permits a single-family dwelling on A-1 parcels that are 20 acres or larger” (Holland & Hart Memo, p. 2). They also summarized Pearce’s reasoning that the “residential subdivision” language should not be read to defeat that result (Holland & Hart Memo, p. 2).
So the written record is not ambiguous on the core point. In 2025, Pearce argued that 20-acre A1 parcels carry a residential building right. He instructed the County to change course accordingly. He then hired outside counsel, and outside counsel endorsed that interpretation.
That is why Pearce’s present public statement matters so much.
To be precise, Pearce did not previously write the exact phrase “unlimited 20-acre splits.” That phrase appears in the Meyer memo and now in Pearce’s April 13, 2026 public remarks. But that does not erase the contradiction. The contradiction lies in substance. Meyer warned in 2021 that the code does not permit reading §§ 5-4-1(B)(1) and 5-4-1(B)(3) to authorize repeated 20-acre parcel division with a house on each resulting parcel (Meyer Memo, pp. 2, 5). Pearce resisted that conclusion in 2025 by stating that owners of A1 parcels of 20 acres or more are “entitled to build one single-family residence” (Pearce Memo, p. 12; filed exhibit PDF p. 16). Holland & Hart then endorsed that same position (Holland & Hart Memo, pp. 1-2).
The complaint Pearce later filed against former Prosecutor Delton Walker makes the sequence even harder to ignore. In the complaint filed April 23, 2025, Pearce alleged that on June 21, 2021, Walker advised the Board that section 5-4-1(B) authorizes the construction of single-family residences on A1 parcels “that have twenty (20) or more acres of lot area” (Complaint, p. 2, paragraph 8). Pearce further alleged that, based on that advice, the Board allowed a local property investor to split land into multiple 20-acre parcels and sell them to individuals who would build homes on them (Complaint, p. 2, paragraph 9). He then alleged that the Meyer Memo “expressly contradicts” that earlier legal advice (Complaint, pp. 2-3, paragraph 10).
The complaint then goes further. Pearce alleged that Walker emailed the Meyer Memo to Commissioner Nate Marvin and that Walker thereby acted “[b]y emailing Commissioner Nate Marvin to offer legal advice or opinion and to promulgate the Meyer Memo” and “[b]y relying on his standing as a licensed attorney” to “advocate for the Meyer Memo’s misconstruction of the Code” (Complaint, p. 5, paragraph 24). Pearce also alleged that, “[a]s a direct and proximate result” of that conduct, he “has been required to procure the advice of outside counsel to obviate the confusion caused by the Defendant’s unlawful legal advice and to confirm to the Board’s satisfaction that the Plaintiff’s Memorandum contains sound legal analysis and advice” (Complaint, p. 6, paragraph 31).
That is what makes Pearce’s current public messaging so significant. When the Meyer memo was circulated in 2025, Pearce treated it as wrong, harmful, and important enough to justify hiring outside counsel and filing suit. But in 2026, Pearce told the public: “There’s some sort of a misconception that we allow unlimited 20-acre splits in the county… that is not what the code says. It is not what it’s ever said. We don’t allow it.” That statement now tracks the core conclusion Meyer gave on August 27, 2021: that the code does not permit “an unlimited number of 20-acre lots” with a house on each one and that such a reading “is not permissible under the County’s zoning ordinance” (Meyer Memo, p. 2).
That raises an unavoidable public question: what changed?
If Pearce believes his April 7, 2025 memo and his April 13, 2026 public statement are fully consistent, then he owes the public a detailed explanation of how. He should identify where, in his 2025 analysis, he clearly explained that a 20-acre building right did not translate into repeated 20-acre residential splitting. He should explain why Meyer’s August 27, 2021 conclusion was treated as wrong or misleading if he now says, in substance, the same thing. And he should explain why outside counsel was retained to “confirm” his interpretation if the code had always been as clear as he now says it is (Complaint, p. 6, paragraph 31; Pearce cover letter, p. 1).
If, on the other hand, Pearce’s legal position has changed, then the public deserves candor about that too. Public officials may revise earlier legal views. They may reconsider the consequences of their own analysis. But if that happens, the public should be told plainly. A changed position should not be presented as though it had always been the position all along, especially when the documents say otherwise.
This matters beyond one zoning dispute. Rural land-use policy affects property owners, neighbors, roads, wells, agriculture, and the future character of the county. Those are not abstract issues. And public confidence depends on consistency and honesty about changes in legal interpretation. A prosecutor who first argues that owners of 20-acre A1 parcels are “entitled to build one single-family residence” (Pearce Memo, p. 12; filed exhibit PDF p. 16), then secures Holland & Hart’s endorsement that the code “clearly permits a single-family dwelling on A-1 parcels that are 20 acres or larger” (Holland & Hart Memo, p. 2), and later tells the public that Washington County does not allow unlimited 20-acre splits and never has, cannot reasonably expect the public to ignore the shift.
Commissioners, voters, and the public should insist on a direct, on-the-record answer to a direct question: Did Pearce’s legal position change, or did it not? If not, he should reconcile his April 7, 2025 memo, the May 5, 2025 Holland & Hart endorsement, and his April 13, 2026 public remarks in a way the public can actually follow. If it did change, he should say when, why, and on what legal basis.
The paper trail is now too clear to dismiss. The Meyer memo of August 27, 2021 said the code does not permit “an unlimited number of 20-acre lots” with a house on each one (Meyer Memo, p. 2). Pearce’s memo of April 7, 2025 said owners of 20-acre A1 parcels are “entitled to build one single-family residence” (Pearce Memo, p. 12; filed exhibit PDF p. 16). Holland & Hart’s opinion of May 5, 2025 said Pearce’s interpretation was correct and described it as allowing a single-family dwelling on A-1 parcels that are 20 acres or larger (Holland & Hart Memo, pp. 1-2). Then, on April 13, 2026, Pearce publicly said unlimited 20-acre splits are not what the code says and not what it has “ever said.”
When a public official spends a year fighting a legal conclusion and then begins publicly echoing it, the public does not owe him silence or confusion. The record is public. The contradiction is real. Pearce should explain it on the record.
The citizens of Washington County (your constituents) deserve the facts, the truth, and some transparency on this matter. Each of you need to take the time to read and understand the facts surrounding this matter and then have those conversations and make decisions in an open meeting. If mistakes were made, admit them. If the code needs changed or clarified, do it through the legal processes under Idaho law. Follow the laws.
Thank you.
Frank Schwartz
Attachments (3)