Water works: Conservancy district gets cool reception

By WILLIAM L. SPENCE

The Daily Inter Lake

A proposal to create a water conservancy district around Echo, Abbot and Peterson lakes got a cool reception on a cold night Thursday.

About 40 people attended the hearing hosted by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

If approved, the district would try to obtain a water right on Noisy Creek, which disappears into the ground east of Echo Lake. The water would then be diverted into Echo Creek, which flows into the lake.

The proposal is an effort to control and stabilize water levels that have historically gone up or down, depending largely on how much spring runoff occurs.

Several speakers Thursday said it would be nice to have higher water levels, but almost no one expressed support for the district.

A major concern was whether the diversion would dry up springs and creeks for adjacent property owners, or reduce the recharge rates for aquifers in the area.

"I'm concerned about the effects this project might have on surrounding landowners," one speaker said. "I don't want to hear after it's done that 'We didn't realize …' The burden of proof is on the applicants to show that there won't be any negative impacts."

At this point, no one really knows where the Noisy Creek water goes after it flows underground.

Some hydrologists think the water recharges the valley's deep, artesian aquifer, the primary water source for much of the Flathead.

Others think it feeds the shallow aquifer under Echo Lake, or that it pops up in springs that feed pothole lakes all along the Swan Front.

This uncertainty has fueled long-running disagreements among landowners in the area about the benefits of any diversion.

Scott Hollinger, a Realtor and Echo Lake property owner, said all the lakes in that area fluctuate based on changing water levels in the underlying aquifer, and adding surface water from Noisy Creek wouldn't have any effect.

"It's like trying to fill a sieve," he said. "Look at Lake Blaine - they had low water and then came back up, just like we did, but no one plays with the water there."

However, Don Glain, one of the original district proponents, said he has records showing that an ongoing diversion over the last few years has dramatically improved water levels.

Since 2002, Glain and other Echo Lake homeowners have diverted almost 18,000 acre-feet of water from Noisy Creek into Echo Creek, using an existing diversion dam that was approved and completed in 1991.

(An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, which is roughly as much water as a family of four uses in a year.)

During that time, Glain said lake levels have risen almost six feet.

"We're the only ones who have been able to keep water levels up during the drought years," he said. "I get calls all the time from Lake Blaine and other areas asking how we keep our lake up."

Other speakers expressed concerns about the potential liability of manipulating water levels, particularly in high-runoff years.

If the diversion contributed to flooding around the lake - or if stopping the diversion led to flooding somewhere else - some people wondered if the district would be liable.

The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department also disputed claims that the diversion would benefit fish in the lakes.

"The department feels there would be no appreciable benefit to the fishery," fishery biologist Scott Rumsey wrote in the department's formal comment on this proposal.

"The department doesn't support the transfer of water from Noisy Creek to Echo Creek," he said. "We feel the Echo, Abbot, Peterson property owners should be patient and allow the basin aquifers to recharge naturally."

Based on Thursday's comments, the DNRC will evaluate the proposal and decide whether it should proceed.

If the department ultimately supports the concept, it would petition District Court to create the conservancy. An election would then be scheduled, giving property owners in the proposed district the final say on whether it gets created or not.

Even if the district is created, it would still have to apply for a water right.

There's no guarantee that the water right application would be approved; however, there is reportedly only one water right on Noisy Creek right now, so the district would have a reasonable chance of prevailing.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com