Whitefish planning board debates how specific to make water-quality goals in growth policy

Whitefish planning board members spent the June 18 meeting wrestling with how detailed the growth policy should be on water quality, after staff presented a revised chapter and members of the public asked the city to compile water-quality reports and monitor outfalls.

The growth policy is the city's long-range guiding document that lays out visions, values and priorities that shape future regulations and programs, staff planner Aaron Tiefenbach told the board during his presentation. "What it really is is the visions, the values, and the official positions of the city," Tiefenbach said, and staff explained that the draft environmental section had been revised after consultation with the Whitefish Lake Institute (WLI) and other agencies and after public review.

Why it matters: Board members said the growth policy will be used later to justify new zoning and implementation actions, and several residents urged the board to include stronger language so the city can monitor and make publicly accessible water-quality information that affects Whitefish Lake and the Whitefish River.

Staff summary and recommended language Staff described the drafting process as iterative: planners met with WLI in May 2024, circulated drafts to city departments and outside agencies, and incorporated many comments before publishing a version for public review. Staff warned that some proposed additions submitted by board members and members of the public were duplicative, unenforceable, or would require resources the city does not have. Staff also said WLI reviewed earlier drafts and that the institute supported the most recent staff version.

The items raised for stronger or added objectives included: directing the city to obtain and track records of discharges and DEQ reports (including 303(d) listings), establishing a water-quality information center or public portal, requiring additional study or periodic scientific reports, identifying and addressing failing septic systems, inspection of septic systems at property sale or annexation, stricter provisions for recreational uses (including golf courses), and moving fireworks away from sensitive shoreline areas.

Public comments: BNSF outfalls, DEQ records, and local monitoring Several public commenters asked the board to require more visible monitoring and public access to DEQ and BNSF reporting. One resident warned that pipes from the railyard will send "some pretty ugly looking water, directly into the river" during heavy rains and urged the city to compile and share DEQ discharge reports that otherwise go directly to state regulators. Commenters and several board members discussed whether the city could or should hire contractors to sample outfalls, or instead collect public records and link to them.

Board discussion and trade-offs Board members agreed the chapter should show ambition but debated how specific objectives should be and what the city can realistically accomplish given legal limits and staffing. Key points: - Several board members favored an objective to "ensure systems are in place to monitor outflows into the river and lake and to provide public access to water-quality information where feasible," paired with discretion for staff on implementation and partnerships (for example with WLI). - Staff and others cautioned that many monitoring and enforcement responsibilities lie with state and federal agencies (the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and EPA) and with private permit holders such as BNSF; the city may not have regulatory authority for groundwater or some outfalls. Staff noted the city can require septic inspection in some contexts (for example, on annexation) but cannot unilaterally regulate every activity beyond the city's statutory authority. - Board members asked staff to add an objective to track 303(d) listings (state-designated impaired waters) and to prepare or make available reports that identify probable sources where those listings exist; staff said compiling public records or links to DEQ/EPA records could be pursued but will require staff time or grants. - Several board members and a staff member urged that language about seeking grant funding be handled consistently across chapters; one city staffer asked that if the board wants funding language included it should appear in a preamble or be added consistently to all relevant sections rather than only to water quality.

Next steps and implementation No formal vote was recorded on new language at the June 18 meeting. The board directed staff to continue refining the water-quality section: incorporate feasible additions (partnering with WLI and other entities, improving public access to DEQ/EPA reporting where possible, and adding an objective to track 303(d) compliance) while flagging items that would require future implementation work, funding, or statutory authority. Staff repeatedly emphasized the difference between a growth-policy objective (directional, often 20-year) and an implementation task that will require additional budgeting, staffing, or regulation changes.

The board scheduled continued line-by-line review of the revised chapter in upcoming sessions; staff said the final growth policy will include a separate implementation table identifying short-, medium-, and long-term actions, responsible parties and likely funding sources.

Ending The water-quality chapter will remain on the board's agenda for further drafting; public commenters and several board members said they prefer including stronger objectives now and then refining the implementation steps in a later action plan so the city and the public can track progress over time.