Lakeshore statute-of-limitations bill draws opposition from environmental and county officials

Sen. Greg Hertz, sponsor of Senate Bill 168, told the House Local Government Committee that the bill would create a three-year statute of limitations for most constructed features in lakeshore protection zones, with exceptions for illegal work that causes documented material harm.

"So this bill, it applies to clearly visible boat ramps, boat houses, boat shore stations, boat rail system, dock systems, piers, wharfs, and retaining walls," Sen. Hertz said, and he noted the bill excludes activities that involve significant dredging or infill. He said the proposed statute would not apply to structures "that were constructed illegally and that ... cause documented material harm to lakeshore stability, water quality, or aquatic life."

The sponsor also described a maintenance exception: "Minor means less than $10,000 over a 5 year period," he said.

Supporters including Mark Taylor, an attorney who participated in the bill's earlier drafting, said the measure converts a straight grandfathering approach into a statute-of-limitations framework that provides landowners with "stability and certainty." Taylor said the bill had been amended with input from the governor's office and other stakeholders.

Opponents urged the committee to reject the bill. Laura Collins of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the documentation required to prove material harm would be costly and that the bill "would be pretty enticing for property owners that are counting on the likelihood that they might not get caught within this time frame." She said the proposal could leave enforcement to "neighbor to neighbor policing."

Karen Alley of the Montana Association of Counties said she was in "soft opposition" and worried the bill would create a loophole for minor modifications that would skirt lakeshore permitting. Missoula County shoreline program administrator Matt Heimel said the bill "would result in unequal application of shoreline protection laws" and expressed concern that significant adverse impacts to lakes can become apparent more than three years after construction.

Tim Worley, representing the Montana Association of Planners, told the committee that most jurisdictions lack the resources to actively police shoreline violations and that a three-year limitation would "skew the rules in favor of shoreline violators and unfairly against those who follow the rules." Worley said there are better ways to address historic structures in the lakeshore protection zone.

During questioning, committee members asked whether the terms "documented harm" and "material harm" are defined in statute. The witness representing the planners' association said there is no clear definition in the shoreline statute and that his preference would be that illegal construction alone be the threshold for enforcement.

No formal committee action on SB 168 is recorded in the provided transcript segment.