Bigfork conservation group may bring litigation against county for bridge permit

A newly formed conservation group in Bigfork wants to see the bridge being built to Dockstader Island removed — even if it has to sue Flathead County over it.

The Community Association for North Shore Conservation formed two weeks ago and retained Kalispell attorney Don Murray to pursue revocation of the 2011 permit that allowed Washington state developer Roger Sortino and his daughter, Jolene Dugan, to build a bridge from their property on the north shore of Flathead Lake to Dockstader Island. According to Murray, the permit was issued in violation of Montana’s lakeshore protection act.

The act, which was created by the Legislature in 1975, places enforcement of lakeshore regulations on local county governments. Under the act, permit applications for projects that do not have significant impact may avoid the public review process and may be approved by the county commissioners, rather than through the county planning office.

Construction on the bridge started in spring 2014. It soon began to cause a public uproar. That fact alone says the project has significant visual impact, Murray said. “It is one of the biggest structures on the lake,” Murray said, “and for the county to handle it by summary procedure and find it had no significant impact is just not reasonable. The public never knew about it until the permit was issued. Had it gone to the planning board there would have been public input.

“That never happened.”

Murray said he hopes to meet soon with the county commission to see if it will voluntarily revoke the bridge’s construction permit.

“If they don’t, then the complaint will be filed in district court,” he said.

The complaint would allege that the county did not follow procedural requirements of state law and the county’s own lakeshore protection regulations by granting permit under summary review process, where they don’t allow public involvement.

“That’s the only option they’ve left us,” Murray said. “The permit was issued in error and they’ve been unresponsive” to requests to revoke it, he said.

Under its current permit, the bridge will not reach the island. In fact it will be about 100 feet short. Last spring, the county planning office issued a stop work order on the bridge when it was found that the construction project would make the bridge nearly 100 feet longer than permitted. The developer violated the existing permit twice, according to conservation group founder Dave Hadden. The other permit violation was when the bridge crossed property lines not specified in the original permit.

Construction resumed on the project after the permit holder said they would comply with the original permit.

The Flathead County Planning Office initially reviewed the permit in January 2011 application and forwarded it to the commissioners for review. The county commission approved the permit in April 2011.

Murray said the bridge project is a visual eyesore, as well as an impediment to recreation and navigation on the north shore of Flathead Lake.

Murray said the state lawmakers who drafted the lakeshore protection act during “the golden era” of Montana’s environmental movement of the 1970s had foresight for future protection of Montana’s lakes. The act was written so concerned citizens could challenge lakeshore permit applications, Murray said. Flathead County adopted the regulations in 1982.

The lakeshore protection act is not often cited in legal challenges, though. Murray said he found one other instance in which the act was cited, and that involved a case on Bigfork Bay that went to the Montana Supreme Court.

Under the act, a road may not be built in the lakeshore protection zone, which is a buffer around a protected lake or waterway.

Murray said the error in granting the permit may have occurred when the Flathead County Planning Office deemed the permit was for a bridge — not a road.

However, Murray said the bridge will be a road — between the north shore of Flathead Lake and Dockstader Island, which is private property.

“It’s not defensible to say a bridge is not a road,” Murray said.

He hopes he doesn’t have to litigate the bridge permit.

‘I’m an eternal optimist,” he said, “but I don’t know how they deal with things like this. If they choose the path that’s likely to cause the least turmoil, or if they do what we think is the right thing. I hope they agree with us that it’s clear that they should have used the full review procedure with the planning board.”

The Bigfork-based conservation group aims to be a watchdog organization for other issues on Flathead Lake — not just the north shore bridge project. 

“We’re fortunate to live in a country that allows citizens to challenge their government,” Hadden said, “but it’s unfortunate that in a case as black and white as this that Flathead County won’t do the right thing and revoke the permit.”

Murray said he has a vested interest as a concerned citizen to help protect Flathead Lake. “It isn’t just a gem for people to see it, it’s a state and national treasure,” he said. “It’s an incredible body of water and it hurts me to see reckless development on each stretch of shore line that succumbs to somebody’s dream home or sprawling mansion.”