Protecting lakes is serious business
The Flathead County Planning Board currently is weighing a number of options about how to handle lakeshore protection regulations on Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes.
When the state Supreme Court switched planning control around Whitefish from the city to the county, the shores of those two lakes flowed into the county’s domain.
For nearly three decades the Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee, a joint city-county group, handled lakeshore issues. Several members of the now-defunct committee are pushing to restore that joint group, using the proverbial “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” rationale.
Jim Stack, who served on the lakeshore committee for more than 20 years — as chairman most of those years — told the county commissioners earlier this fall the committee always strived to maintain neutrality in spite of numerous jurisdictional disagreements through the years. And by doing so the committee earned the continuous trust and support of both governing bodies, he noted.
We can see no harm that would come from allowing the joint committee to continue its oversight of these two lakes. About a quarter of Whitefish Lake’s shoreline falls within city limits, so it’s an unusual situation.
Stack also has pointed out that none of the county’s other lakes experience the degree of natural seasonal water fluctuation that Whitefish Lake does, so it behooves the governing bodies to have rules specific to that lake. And because Whitefish Lake was annexed by the city to the low water mark, one area of confusion is that any docks and buoys associated with county property on Whitefish Lake would actually be in city limits.
Perhaps there are enough differences to give special lakeshore oversight to Whitefish Lake, arguably one of the tourism gems of Northwest Montana. On the other hand, all of our local lakes are precious treasures and need to be given serious attention whether they are in Whitefish or not.
The path of least resistance for the county would be to lump Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes into its overall lakeshore protection regulations for all other lakes within the county. That’s what is currently being done, and that scenario is one of six options being considered.
If the commissioners — who make the final determination — don’t want separate regulations for Whitefish lakes and don’t want the collaborative lakeshore committee to continue, then it seems reasonable for them to consider another option which takes the special circumstances of Whitefish into consideration.
That option would include the two Whitefish lakes in the county lakeshore regulations, but review, revise and update the regulations within the next year to reflect the relevant idiosyncrasies, particularly of Whitefish Lake.
Other county residents may question whether Whitefish Lake should be given consideration above other lakes. Nonetheless, it is a valuable resource and friends of Whitefish Lake should be confident that it will be protected now and in the future.