Board struggles with lakeshore regs update

Whitefish Pilot

The Whitefish City-County Planning Board took a first look at a major rewrite of the Whitefish lake and lakeshore regulations on May 21 at the request of the city council.

Planning board chairman Steve Qunell pointed out from the outset that the board had no purview over lakeshore regulations. The meeting slowly evolved into a work session after some initial confusion about the board’s role. The board took public comment and reviewed the document, giving it a unanimous 5-0 vote.

City planner Nikki Bond pointed out that the Whitefish lakeshore regulations are the oldest in the state, and the Lakeshore Protection Committee is the only such committee active in the state. It was Whitefish residents who brought the idea to the legislature, which created the statute to protect lakes in 1975.

Bond said the proposed regulations will be presented to the Flathead County commissioners, where they will “likely” be adopted for the county’s 37 regulated lakes.

Ninety percent of the input for the changes came from an ad hoc committee with a diverse makeup, she said, and both Flathead County deputy attorney Jonathan Smith and Whitefish city attorney John Phelps said the regulations were lawful.

Bond pointed out that the proposed regulations were contentious, and she had received numerous e-mails with comments through a Web site called weloveourlake.com. City planning staff recommended approval with the addition of Blanchard Lake to the regulations.

Twenty people addressed the board, with 13 generally supporting the proposed regulations, five generally opposed and two offering information.

Whitefish attorney Sharon Morrison, the lakeshore protection committee member who wrote the minority report critical of the proposed regulations, warned that if certain language was not changed, the entire regulations could be successfully challenged in court.

But she said her opinion on how to amend the proposed regulations had changed since the minority report was submitted. If certain key parts of the proposed regulations were changed, the rest could stay in place even if they appear to be unconstitutional.

“It’s an evolving process,” she said, adding that some changes are “pretty easy to fix and will reduce the level of contentiousness.”

Morrison said she feels passionately about protecting the lake and getting the Whitefish community back together again. She noted that it was her husband, the late Frank Morrison, who led the effort to get the lakeshore protection statute through the legislature in the first place.

“I live my life as an environmentalist,” she said, and “would never do anything to harm water quality.”

Flathead County planner George Smith, who led off the public comment, said the minority report’s view on the lawfulness of the regulations was not the lakeshore protection committee’s view. Then, speaking as a citizen, Smith said Whitefish Lake doesn’t belong to lakeshore property owners — it belongs to everyone.

Dewey Hartman, a longtime lakeshore resident who served on the lakeshore protection committee in the 1990s, stressed the discipline it takes to keep Whitefish Lake pristine. He said changing the regulations into guidelines would make them “worthless.” The regulations need to be flexible, Hartman said, but loopholes need to be closed and language needs to be clear.

Eric Payne said he was concerned about the number of lawsuits the city has seen in recent years because of regulations and asked for more work on the proposed regulations.

“Nobody believes if this is not passed, then the lake will suddenly be polluted,” he said.

Former county commissioner Gary Hall also said there was no hurry to change the regulations. He said he’s sure the county will end up with jurisdiction over the two-mile planning area, the so-called “doughnut” area. He called for the city to work with Morrison to incorporate her concerns.

Jane Solberg, whose family has been on the lake for more than 60 years, wanted to know why the people behind the weloveourlake.com Web site didn’t apply for a position on the lakeshore protection committee or attend its meetings.

She also criticized the anonymous letters — “some libelous,” she suggested — and the “fear tactics” employed by the group.

“Why did they wait until the last minute?” she asked, referring to the years of work spent on the regulation-update process.

Ron Hauf, a lakeshore protection committee member, said he firmly believes in property rights, but he’s witnessed water quality degradation.

“I scrubbed algae off the bottom of my floats twice last year,” he said. “I’m willing to give up something for water quality.”

The proposed regulations will go to the city council on June 15.