Dont change lake level in court

Year in and year out, waves have been lapping at the shores of Flathead Lake, chiseling away land at a glacial pace. Shoreline erosion is something that would continue inevitably, too, if it were not for a low-profile lawsuit filed by an elderly woman who owns land at the head of the lake.

Becky Mattsons lawsuit alleges that PPL Montana is operating Kerr Dam in a fashion that may serve the power companys revenue interests, but to the irrefutable detriment of lakeshore landowners.

The lawsuit uses worthy arguments in shedding light on an important local resource issue, but it seeks a remedy that would benefit some while having undesirable, and perhaps unforeseeable, impacts for others who use the lake.

In District Judge Ted Lympuss court last month, Mattsons attorneys sought a court order that would require PPL Montana to lower Flathead Lake three feet between Sept. 15 and Oct. 31. The idea is to draw the lake below its full pool elevation to reduce erosion during the typically windy month of October, when waves cause a good share of the shoreline erosion that occurs every year.

The loss of lakefront property to wind-driven waves has been meticulously documented by Mark Lorang, an associate professor at the University of Montanas Yellow Bay Biological Station. Lorang is an expert witness in the case and testifed that having lower lake levels in October would substantially reduce the amount of erosion.

We have no reason to doubt him. And, with that in mind, having a lower lake level in October would serve a broad public interest. Specifically, it would go a long way in protecting the fragile and threatened wetlands at the head of Flathead Lake that play a huge role in maintaining the lakes water quality.

But there are considerable problems in lowering the lake even one foot during the month of September, a shoulder season month when the water is still warm and boaters are using docks around the lake.

Their interests are not being represented in the lawsuit, and that leads to one of the central issues raised in court should a state judge be presiding over operations of a federally licensed hyrdroelectric dam? It may be appropriate to provide relief to people who are losing land to dam operations, but not if it comes at the expense of a broader public that has no say in the matter.

Perhaps a compromise can be worked out, which takes into account the recreational and economic benefits of boating, as well as the enviornmental issues. That seems to be the only way to avoid a legal tug-of-war that could drag on for years and might leave no one happy.