Whitefish planning board debates detailed water-quality objectives for growth policy

Whitefish planning board members and city staff debated how specific the growth policy's water-quality goals and objectives should be during a June 18 work session, focusing on monitoring, public access to regulatory records and how the city might partner with Whitefish Lake Institute to avoid duplicating scientific work.

The discussion centered on a staff draft presented by Aaron Tiefenbach, the city's long-range planner, and red-line suggestions submitted by board members and the public. Tiefenbach described the growth policy as "the visions, the values, and the official positions of the city," and said the water-quality section should include narrative plus goals, objectives and implementation steps to guide later regulations and programs.

Board members and public commenters pushed staff to add clearer objectives about monitoring outfalls, tracking state and federal reporting and making results available. A public commenter, identified in the record as Richard, urged the board to track discharge records from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railyard and make those records visible to the public: "...those pipes are gonna be pumping some pretty ugly looking water, directly into the river. And ... I think we have a responsibility," he said. City staff and board members repeatedly noted limits on municipal authority: "We don't have any regulatory arm," said Craig (city staff), describing the city's inability to enforce permits issued by state or federal agencies and the resulting need to rely on agency records and partners.

Discussion points included: - Whether the growth policy should require the city itself to conduct scientific monitoring or instead collect and publish monitoring performed by others (Whitefish Lake Institute, DEQ, EPA, BNSF and other entities). Tiefenbach and staff told the board they had consulted WLI and other agencies and incorporated many suggestions into the draft. Tiefenbach said staff had sent revised drafts to experts and public review lists before returning to the board for further edits. - A proposal from board members to add objectives that would ensure "systems in place that are monitoring outflows into the river and lake" and to provide public access "where feasible" to DEQ/EPA reports and other monitoring data. Board members discussed whether that should be accomplished by city-hosted web pages or by linking to WLI or state/federal data sources. - Tracking and reporting on 303(d) listings (state-identified impaired waters under the Clean Water Act) as a distinct objective. A red-line suggestion on the staff draft would add an objective that "the city shall track 303(d) compliance" and prepare a summary of facts and probable sources where a listing exists. Staff noted obtaining and compiling those records is possible but can be time-consuming. - Practical limits of municipal implementation and potential resource needs. City staff and board members repeatedly cautioned the board that some monitoring and enforcement actions are outside the city's jurisdiction and would require coordination with state or federal bodies. As Dana (city finance staff) noted, adding objectives that imply new staff work or program funding would have budgetary implications and should be considered across chapters consistently.

Board members proposed a working approach rather than a full rewrite: start from the staff's current draft, incorporate red-line items that fit within the city's authority and capacity, and carry other detailed proposals forward as implementation/action items to be prioritized later. Several members said they preferred including stronger objectives now and leaving specifics for the implementation/action plan (who will do the work, funding sources, and timeline), while others cautioned against objectives the city could not enforce.

On specific items discussed: - Whitefish Lake Institute (WLI): staff reported WLI participated in drafting the section and that WLI advised against the city creating and operating a full scientific monitoring program; board members recommended the draft explicitly say the city will continue to partner with WLI and other organizations for monitoring and public access to data. - BNSF discharges and DEQ reporting: a public commenter urged the city to gather and publish discharge permit and sampling records for railyard outfalls. Staff said BNSF is required to report to DEQ but the data are reported to state/federal agencies, and compiling those files for public access would be possible but may require staff time and periodic requests. - PCBs and other contaminants: the board discussed referencing contaminants discussed in the background materials (including PCBs and mercury) and decided to keep objectives general while ensuring the narrative and objectives make clear the city will identify and address sources of contamination in partnership with experts.

No formal motion or vote was recorded on the water-quality language during the session. The board agreed to continue line-by-line review and to work from the staff draft, incorporating selected red-line edits and carrying implementation details into an action plan that will identify responsible parties, funding options and timelines.

Aaron Tiefenbach, long-range planner for the City of Whitefish, said the growth policy's water-quality objectives should be specific enough to guide later regulations without creating unfunded mandates: "This is a policy document...these are the policies and the priorities that drive future regulations, work, programs, status, funding." Craig (city staff) summarized the practical constraint: "We don't have any regulatory arm. We'd have to contact each of our vendor reports" when referring to state/federal permits. A public commenter said simply: "I'd like to see it addressed," urging the board to ensure monitoring information is available to the public.

Next steps: Board members directed staff to keep the water-quality item on the agenda, continue incorporating WLI's input and the board's red-line suggestions, and to produce a revised draft that identifies objectives and, separately, an implementation/action list indicating who would carry out monitoring, how public access might be provided and potential funding sources. That package will be returned to the board for further review before being forwarded toward the city council process.