Concerned citizens told the Flathead County Planning Board last week to make sure protection for Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes doesn’t get caught up in the “doughnut” dispute.

The City-County Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee, which dealt with Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes, was suspended this summer following a Montana Supreme Court decision in July that gave Flathead County jurisdiction over Whitefish’s two-mile planning doughnut.

Ron Hauf, who served on the lakeshore protection committee, said not everyone agrees with the regulations, but they are important for protecting the lake from degradation.

“This isn’t about the city or the county, but it’s about the lake, plain and simple,” Hauf said. “Quit the bickering.”

Whitefish resident Charlie Abell said each lake in the county is unique and requires unique regulations. The lakeshore committee worked well for the last three decades, he noted.

“It worked well before,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s the arrogance of the politicians or the bureaucracy or what, but it worked. The people did it well before and let’s see if we can do it well again.”

Currently, lakeshore permits are bypassing the suspended joint board and are going to either the city council or commissioners based on the property’s location.

The county planning board is tasked with making a recommendation to the county commissioners on how to proceed, but following two public hearings, the board has asked for more time to consider the matter.

During a Nov. 12 meeting, board members received a large stack of letters on the issue. Citing a need to spend time examining those letters, the board voted to close the public comments and schedule discussion and a vote for its Dec. 10 meeting.

Six options have been presented to the planning board for how to handle the matter.

• Amend the Flathead County lake and lakeshore protection regulations to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes.

• Include the two lakes in the county regulations, then review, revise and update the regulations in the next fiscal year.

• Continue using Flathead County’s Whitefish area lake and lakeshore protection regulations that were in place prior to the interlocal agreement that created the two-mile planning jurisdiction.

• Adopt Whitefish’s lake and lakeshore protection regulations that were used during the interlocal agreement.

• Work with the public and Whitefish to create new lakeshore regulations for the two lakes that are agreeable to both the city and county, and adopt them separately.

• Discuss with the city a mutually agreeable arrangement to give city lakeshore jurisdiction of Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes.

Whitefish Planning Director Dave Taylor said the city favors the adoption of Whitefish’s regulations. The city will continue to follow its regulations on the portion of the lake within its jurisdiction, he noted.

“We think it would be better to work together with one set of regulations,” he said. “We continue to support the existing lakeshore protection committee — they’ve done a good job over the years of working harmoniously with the city and county.”

Most of those who commented during the public hearing asked the planning board to continue the use of Whitefish’s lake and lakeshore regulations that were in place during the interlocal agreement and continue the city-county committee.

Koel Abell said the Whitefish regulations were working to protect the lake.

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” he said. “The regulations and committee are not a perfect system, but they have worked.”

Abell said it’s a misconception that the Whitefish regulations are more stringent. He pointed to a regulation that is in both the county and city lakeshore regulations that requires a homeowner to obtain a permit to cut down a 3-inch tree.

“There is bad blood between the county and Whitefish,” he said. “But at some point we have to work together and live together.”