A group of citizens is petitioning for stronger lake and lakeshore protections while rekindling a decades-old debate on the jurisdiction of Whitefish Lake.  

Citizens for a Better Flathead filed an appeal with Flathead County this fall, calling for accountability and put out a public petition last week seeking stronger enforcement of lake and lakeshore protection regulations. 

“The county’s failure to enforce its own rules both hurts Whitefish Lake and sends a clear message that our elected officials won’t hold bad actors accountable when they damage our lakes and other natural resources,” said Cameron Dexter, the group’s policy and planning director. “There are 59 lakes of 20 acres or more in Flathead County that should be fully protected by Flathead County’s [lakeshore regulations].”  

Since 2020, a total of 704 lakeshore violations have occurred in Flathead County. This includes violations that occurred both with and without a required permit. In 2025 alone, there were 119 violations, of which 31 remain unresolved. 

According to Flathead County Planning Director Erik Mack, the county planning and zoning department’s approach is to work to resolve violations before they escalate to being referred to the county attorney.   

“The newer violations from the past two years are still moving through our process, which unfortunately takes time,” Mack said in an email to the Pilot.  

Of the unresolved violations, Mack said that one case has been referred to the County Attorney’s Office, and two cases require engineering work before permits can be issued. One 2020 case – the private home on McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park – was placed on hold, pending a lawsuit filed in federal court.  

A violation in Beaver Bay in Whitefish Lake on May 29, 2024, is also unresolved, Mack confirmed. Due to boulders within the Lake and Lakeshore Protection Zone, both a lakeshore and floodplain violation remain open. 

Charles and Kelly Paquelet of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, purchased the Beaver Bay lakeshore property near Lion Mountain in 2021 and hired Whitefish-based High Country Builders, owned by Walt Landi, to construct a luxury home on the shoreline.  

On May 29, 2024, an excavating blast on the property, located above the lakeshore protection zone, sent materials into Whitefish Lake, leading to a violation. 

At the time, Landi said a professional company was hired to do the blasting, and that “it was just an accident that ended up with materials in the lake.”  

The Whitefish Lake Institute's limnologist, Cassie Roberts, said at a City Council meeting the month after the incident that the sediment loading caused by the explosion might have been less severe if not for a previous violation wherein 50 to 60 trees were removed, thus destabilizing the hill. 

“It takes hundreds of years for topsoil to develop,” Roberts said of the affected slope. “It will never be the same. We’ve managed to keep this lake free of most invasive species and low in nutrients, not by accident, or by chance, but through tireless work by this community." 

“We need to come up with a viable way to prevent these lakeshore violations before they happen,” she said.  

After about a four- to six-month delay, work continued at the property, the builders said last week.  

“One by one we went through the agencies... they came out and cleared us for everything,” Landi said. “The county came out numerous times to inspect, measure.” 

“I thought they [the county] did a fantastic job. And trust me, they were looking... they have a lot of pressure. They came out right away and looked at the situation objectively.” 

Landi said it’s fortunate that the rules govern as they do, and that everyone, from the agencies to the county commissioners — who approve lakeshore permits— also did their job well.  

“And most people do not understand this,” he said. “They think the 20-foot [lakeshore protection zone] is a miniature wilderness zone. It isn’t. You are allowed — with a permit— to cut trees, take out brush, put in gravel, put in paths. There’s only about a dozen things that you’re not allowed to do, and that has to do with building permanent structures or septic setbacks, that type of stuff.”  

Landi said it’s “dirty politics.” 

“Everyone’s shouting at us at the top of their lungs, but they did nothing helpful with the cleanup. And not once, did anyone reach out to us, to offer advice or help.”  

The delayed process at the property due to public pressure shows that it would “be a disaster” to see an administrative shift in the regulations, Landi said.  

THE CITIZEN’S petition in the wake of the Beaver Bay incident fundamentally questions the efficacy of the split jurisdiction of Whitefish Lake.  

Under the 1975 Lakeshore Protection Act, the state of Montana requires that local counties implement and enforce regulations to protect lakes and lakeshores. 

The act was a Whitefish grassroots effort. As a result, the city of Whitefish formed its Lakeshore Protection Committee.  

But about a decade ago, when Whitefish ceased to have planning control in the area immediately outside of city limits known as the “doughnut,” following a legal battle involving the county, it set up the amalgamation of the current lakeshore regulations.  

For the Beaver Bay incident, for example, the land is under county jurisdiction, while the surface of the lake is covered by the city and its Lakeshore Protection Committee. 

The lakebed is administered by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for water quality. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks manage species. 

While the land is under county jurisdiction, the building sits more than 20 horizontal feet away from the water, outside of the lake and lakeside protection zone. The county does not regulate structures through a building permit process. 

The county also does not have an equivalent to the city’s Lakeshore Protection Committee.  

Derek Hyland, High Country Builders superintendent, said that the county is well-regulated and “already has an extensive zoning department with rules and regulations.” 

“I can’t recall another time in my building career when a sitting county Commissioner [Randy Brodehl] physically visited an active site with code enforcement officials to check for compliance.” 

Hyland, with 30 years of experience in construction — half with public enforcement and half with the private sector — said that the struggle between jurisdictional authority exists in all municipalities he has worked in. 

“A building department wouldn’t change what you build,” Hyland added. “With an area already starved for housing this department would just add another layer of red tape, cost and time.” 

WHITEFISH STATE Sen. Dave Fern said that what is needed today is a well-articulated agreement between the county and the city on the process and procedures. 

During the 2025 legislative session, Fern sponsored SB304 – an update to the 1975 Lakeshore Protection Act – that aimed to bolster regulations at the local level. The bill moved out of the Natural Resources committee on a 10-1 vote but later died.   

The bill sought to improve cooperation between governing bodies by requiring compatible permit criteria and enforcement procedures. It included an amendment to give regulatory power to cities that use lakes for drinking water. 

The bill included new provisions such as the ability for local governing bodies to issue stop-work orders, raise fines for violations with potential for jail time for offenders, and file liens for costs related to violations.  

“There’s nothing particularly wrong with the county’s... 55-page template of Montana’s Lakeshore [Act],” Fern said. “But we’re talking about 20 feet. So really the issue is what happened behind the 20 feet.”  

Several states, such as Maine, have a 250-foot protection zone.  

“That 250-foot model is what we’re asking for but don’t know it,” Fern said. “My gut reaction was that never would’ve passed.” 

Fern said the matter at a state level is a “sub-theme of traditional uses of land versus the new industry, which is real estate.” 

Fern said that the geographical diversity of the state perhaps impacted the universality of the lakeshore bill. 

But one thing many areas the state do have in common is the “friction of over-the-top development projects... and change in a short period of time. And then it has an impact on the overall land value.”  

At the local level, that friction is something representatives from both the city and county will have to recognize to help this particular lakeshore issue, Fern said.  

“I have no doubt the county commissioners care about water quality, but they’re providing a different approach, to budgeting, and maybe what they would look at as intrusion to property rights.” 

Fern said a discussion is a good place to start.  

The county planning board will hold a workshop to consider potential revisions to the lakeshore regulations on Jan. 14 at 6 p.m. in the second floor conference room of the South Campus Building, 40 11th Street West, in Kalispell.

    The cleaned up beach at the Beaver Bay property. (Photo provided by High Country Builders)
  

    A before and after aerial photo of the property at Beaver Bay in November 2023 and July 2025. (Image provided by High Country Builders)
  

    A rendering of the home being constructing at the property on the shore of Whitefish Lake. (Photo provided by High Country Builders)