Lake monitoring must be continued

In the course of a legislative committee vote Friday, funding for an ongoing water quality monitoring program on Flathead Lake suddenly disappeared.

Hold on! Did we hear right?

Could anyone really doubt the importance - and value to the state - of Flathead Lake? Apparently, only our legislators in Helena - including one from Whitefish - who decided that $142,500 a year was too much to spend to make sure that the jewel of Western Montana remains pristine.

The Legislature needs to reconsider its actions, and restore funding for a program that counts on consistent monitoring, year after year, to produce a reliable measure of Flathead Lake's water quality.

In recent years, the program has been championed by legislators who happen to live on or near the lake, namely Sen. Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, and former Speaker of the House John Mercer. In this vote, Keenan was joined by fellow Republican senators Greg Barkus and Jon Brueggeman.

Sen. Dan Weinberg, D-Whitefish, was the only local legislator who voted against funding the program when the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment to the state's major spending bill, House Bill 2, on a 12-7 vote. We urge Weinberg to make amends and rally fellow Democrats to support the program if a similar amendment is proposed on the Senate floor later this week.

Now is not the time to say "oh well" to water quality monitoring on the lake. Certainly, the Legislature shouldn't shrink away from its role without at least encouraging or providing a chance for alternative funding.

Development in the Flathead Basin upstream from the lake - much of it involving structures on individual septic systems - has reached a fevered pace. The annual cost of the monitoring program is a pittance compared to the value of economic development that's occurring in the Flathead, or compared to the cost of a special legislative session that's currently being considered at an estimated cost of $200,000. And it is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of dollars being considered for retirement plans and health insurance plans that the state really can't afford.

So let's keep things in perspective.

The importance of monitoring the lake's water quality should not be lightly dismissed, especially when there's a record stretching back to 1978 that shows there has been a gradual decline in water quality that would not be apparent if there had been only sporadic monitoring. Besides, Montana has been clamoring for long-term monitoring in Canada, and it seems a bit hypocritical to abandon it at the same time here.

Water quality monitoring gives future government officials, landowners and others the ability to determine whether their policies and actions are making the Flathead a better, or worse, place to live.

With that information, our community can at least search and strive for ways to improve water quality. Without it, we can assume that water quality in the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River is destined to decline.