Whitefish wants to reinstate the disbanded lakeshore protection committee, and having seemingly no interest from Flathead County to do so isn’t stopping the city from creating its own group.

At a March 2 work session, City Council said it wants to create a Whitefish Lake lakeshore committee made up of both city and county residents.

Councilor Andy Feury pointed out that anything below the low water mark is in the city and should be regulated by Whitefish.

“Anything below the low water mark we should assert our authority in that area,” Feury said. “We need to continue to have a lakeshore protection committee.”

Council set the parameters it wants for the committee — a seven-member group made up of at least two city lakeshore property owners, two county lakeshore property owners and one planning board member.

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

County Planning Director BJ Grieve said the county does do not want to participate with the city in a lakeshore committee.

“It is my understanding, at this time, that there is no willingness at the county level to codify a Whitefish lakeshore protection committee or participate in one,” Grieve said.

Jim Stack, who served more than 20 years on the city-county committee, advocated for a future role of a Whitefish Lake protection committee to serve in an advisory capacity for review of lakeshore permits.

“The committee provides public input in the process,” he said. “They are the input to recommend changes to regulations and review permits for consistency.”

Currently, lakeshore permits are going to either the city council or commissioners based upon the property’s location in either the city or county.

In some cases, permits are needed for both government entities on a single project. Because Whitefish Lake below the low water mark is inside city limits, a permit may be issued for a dock that begins on the shoreline in the county and extends out into the water in the city’s jurisdiction.

City Planning Director Dave Taylor said installation of a water line is an example of a project that might need two permits and would be under two different regulations.

“There may be the possibility of doing some kind of interlocal agreement [between the city and county] to better define that jurisdiction,” he said. “I think we’re willing to work with the county to come up with some kind of agreement.”

Ultimately how permits are handled may be revamped, but Grieve doesn’t believe that will come anytime soon.

“I don’t observe, at this point, consensus from the planning board or the commissioners on that issue,” he said. “There is a handful of things that could fall into two jurisdictions, coming up with an agreement on how to process those may come farther down the line.”

One area of concern noted is the difference in the type of docks allowed under city regulations versus the county.

The city only allows floating docks, but the county allows pier and crib docks.

Grieve said the issue of floating versus crib docks largely takes care of itself in the county.

“People put crib and pilings on Flathead Lake because it doesn’t freeze over and they can,” he said. “On the other lakes that freeze, people put in floating docks. So far what we’ve seen is people on Whitefish Lake want a floating dock.”

Earlier this year, county commissioners agreed to amend the county lakeshore protection regulations to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes. They also agreed to update the county regulations.

The county recently asked Whitefish to weigh in on determining the low water elevation since that is the boundary of the city limits. The county is amending its lakeshore regulations to include Whitefish Lake and is looking to include the elevation figure in the update.

The county planning board placed the lowest measured level for low water at an elevation of 2,996.28 in its draft text amendment. Council last week said it prefers to use the mean low water mark of 2,997.06.

Grieve said the county attorney’s office has recommended using the mean low water mark and he expects the planning board to further discuss the matter at its next meeting. The planning board is set to meet Wednesday, March 11 meeting.