Flathead County Planning Board members were receptive to the idea of forming a county lake and lakeshore advisory committee during a workshop last week. 

At the conclusion of the Jan. 14 meeting, board members said they would return to the drawing board to review the large number of public comments on the enforcement of lake and lakeshore protection regulations.  

The county has not updated its lakeshore regulations in about a decade. 

Regulation enforcement is mainly driven by public complaints and tips, said Erik Mack, director of Flathead County Planning and Zoning.  

“We have a huge county,” Mack said. “We can’t go out and patrol every lake all summer long. So we do rely on the public to let us know when violations are happening.” 

There are 59 lakes that are at least 20 acres in size that fall under the county’s jurisdiction.  

There are two code compliance technicians.  

Mack said, “If you see something on your lake, please call us and let us know.”  

“You don’t need to sign a complaint,” he clarified.  

“We will send our code compliance out to look at it ... That’s the best way to stop it, is to call us when it’s active.” 

County staff said that one draft amendment to regulations on “prescriptive structures” reflects a bill passed last year that grandfathers in certain lake structures.  

“It basically allows any structure that was built without a permit that hasn’t been following enforcement, gets to stay on the lake,” Mack said.  

For example, if a noncompliant structure was built over three years ago, and isn’t caught, it gets to stay. 

“It’s word for word from the statute,” Mack said. “Even if it was technically a violation... It’s frustrating.” 

Mack said that it will contribute to challenges with enforcement, given the size of the county. 

Another amendment adds specifications on extending dock lengths. When Flathead Lake is not at full pool, the county receives many requests for variances to lengthen docks, and this amendment accommodates that option, staff said. 

It was standing-room only as residents from across the county offered insights during public comment.  

Don Murray suggested that the Planning Board review all lakeshore permit applications.  

“That was one of the features of the [1975 Lakeshore Protection] Act – to make sure the public, for whom we’re protecting these lakes, has a say,” Murray said. 

Karin Hilding, who was a city of Whitefish engineer for 30 years, said she has observed people tearing down new, multimillion dollar homes to build grander ones.  

“The [Whitefish Lake] shore is pretty much owned by rich people,” she said. “The water should be owned by everyone. Unfortunately, I don’t see the 20 feet doing what everyone thinks it can do.” 

She proposed a rule limiting the amount of impervious surfaces and suggested volunteering. 

“People put fertilizer on their grass, down to the buffer ... it rains, goes into the lake. Those people don’t want to pollute the lake, but sometimes they don’t get the connection. I would volunteer to knock on doors.” 

Whitefish resident Toby Scott said that a house in Beaver Bay on Whitefish Lake is known as “the concrete house,” while another house across the lake put up a tall retaining wall.  

“You drive by in a boat, it’s nice landscape, wood, wood, wood. All of sudden, there’s this retaining wall. It’s entirely out of context,” he said.  

Echoing other public comments, Scott suggested that the Planning Board – or perhaps a county lakeshore protection committee – review all permit applications before construction starts.  

He explained that a community-led review of permits would ensure builds are consistent with the landscape, similar to permits for land-use. 

“During this review, there should be a site visit, not only by land but by water,” he said.  

Whitefish Lake Institute Executive Director Mike Koopal said that citizen science done in coordination with the Northwest Montana Lakes Network showed that 14 out of 28 lakes sampled in Flathead County have had an increase in phosphorus.  

Nitrogen and phosphorus are building blocks of algae.  

Multiple studies demonstrate that a decrease in water clarity and quality corresponds with a decrease in value of property, he said.  

Koopal commended the board for adding amendments to the regulations on dynamic equilibrium beaches, but said sand should not be recommended for them.  

Amendments on dynamic equilibrium beaches help restore the ecosystem of the shoreline and are preferable to riprap or retaining walls, Mack said.  

Whitefish city planner Lauren McDonald said that applicants considering riprap should prioritize vegetation and provide documentation of alternatives or a report from a qualified professional.  

Koopal also praised the addition of an amendment on invasive species inspections – something put forward by Fish, Wildlife and Parks – but suggested the requirements include additional species.   

Commenters called for various clarifications and more refined definitions of dynamic equilibrium beaches and aquatic toys. 

One commenter read outloud from the draft amendments, “No attempt shall be made to extend the land area into the lake, unless as a dynamic equilibrium beach.” 

She then held up a large poster with an image of an elaborate luxury dock and said, “Does that mean we can build these out?... Does this count as a wave break? Is this part of a dynamic equilibrium beach?”  

Several public comments called for stronger enforcement and higher fines.  

Kate Droll said that “temporary” aquatic toys can evade enforcement by being pulled out of the water sparingly, with anchors remaining permanent in the lake. 

Droll pointed out that Lake County can give up to six months of jail time for regulation violations.   

Whitefish resident Jamie Goguen suggested a tax because the current fines are negligible.  

“If someone is going to disrespect the quality of the life on the lake... perhaps they could pay, ongoing,” she said. 

A letter from Whitefish resident Jim Stack was read out loud.  

“The problem with recent violations is not in advocacy and regulation language, but in inconsistency and determination of enforcements... consistent, full enforcement... is the only means of providing deterrence in the future.” 

Stack advised against the draft amendment’s use of “restoration,” because it weakens enforcement, and implies that one can destroy and then simply restore vegetation.  

Whitefish state Sen. Dave Fern said he appreciated hearing testimony from across the county. 

“It is a good idea to look at lakeshore protection jointly across the county,” he said. “With an increase in tourism, an increase in building, more feet on the ground are necessary.”  

Both the county staff and board members were generally receptive to the robust public comments.  

Given the planning board’s workload, it would be difficult to do permit reviews, said board chair Jeff Larsen.* 

“The lakeshore issues, do kind of break your heart sometimes, but you need someone who has the time to look at these things,” he said.  

He said that while many people have money for fines, not all do.  

“I think we need to read all of this information and spend more time on it,” he said.  

Board member Marie Hickey AuClaire said a county-wide advisory committee would be the better way to go, as opposed to numerous lakeshore committees for more localized areas, because it would be more consistent, and because not all neighborhoods have enough people to make a forum.  

Board member Buck Breckenridge cautioned biting off more than they can chew and being too specific. 

“There’s a balance between being tightly defined, and missing a whole other slot of things,” he said.  

Mack said there would be one to two more public workshops and perhaps a presentation from experts such as Mark Lorang, longtime lake ecologist and former staff member with Flathead Lake Biological Staton, to inform the regulation amendments moving forward. 

*The correct name is Jeff Larsen.