Whitefish board debates stronger water‑quality monitoring, seeks clearer public reporting

The Whitefish Community Development Board spent the bulk of its June 18 meeting debating how the draft growth policy should treat water quality in the city’s lakes, rivers and groundwater, and how the city should gather and publish monitoring data.

Board and public commenters pressed staff to add clearer objectives that would require the city to collect and publish available monitoring and permit records — in particular files submitted to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by BNSF for its rail yard discharges — and to coordinate with the Whitefish Lake Institute (WLI). “We should request the records from DEQ and make them available,” said a resident, Richard (public comment), who urged the city to compile BNSF reporting and other public records so the community can easily see whether discharges and remediation comply with state permits. He said a public-facing repository would make it easier for the city and residents to spot and escalate compliance issues to DEQ.

Alan T., the city’s long‑range planner, described the growth policy as a policy document of “visions, values and official positions” that drives future regulations and implementation steps; he said staff has already worked with WLI and multiple agencies while drafting the water‑quality section. He told the board the chapter is intended to frame goals, with objectives that guide later implementation rather than prescribe technical testing protocols.

Board members and staff discussed multiple specific proposals that had been submitted during the public review, including: a requirement for periodic scientific studies; a city “water‑quality information center” or website; formal tracking of Section 303(d) impairments and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) work; inspecting septic systems on property sales; and special lease conditions or environmental certification for golf courses and city recreational fields.

On monitoring and public reporting: Craig (public works staff) said the city could request documents (for example, permit reporting submitted to DEQ) and put links or summaries on a city page, but cautioned that compiling and summarizing third‑party documents will require staff time and resources. Several board members proposed an objective requiring the city to obtain periodic water‑quality reports — including benchmarks, trends and scientific conclusions — at least every five years, and to make those reports accessible to the public. Alan agreed to add an objective directing the city to “seek, at least every five years, a publicly available water‑quality report for Whitefish Lake that includes benchmarks, data trends and scientific conclusions.”

On BNSF monitoring and discharges: multiple speakers noted that BNSF submits monitoring and cleanup records to DEQ but that those reports are not widely visible to Whitefish residents. Board members suggested an annual city summary of BNSF reports affecting the lake and river, recognizing that the city would not itself enforce DEQ permits but could compile records and submit findings to DEQ when potential noncompliance is identified.

On septic systems and nutrients: the board discussed proposals asking the city to identify and mitigate septic leachate and to update records for older septic systems. Staff and several members emphasized the limits of city authority: many septic systems lie outside city sewer service and are regulated at the county level. The board agreed to include objectives that encourage tracking known older systems (e.g., those older than 40 years), note limits of municipal jurisdiction, and prioritize septic inspection requirements in the limited circumstances the city can regulate (for example, inspections tied to annexation).

On stormwater, MS4 and outfalls: participants noted that the city is preparing for potential MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) requirements and that some large outfalls (including combined outfalls influenced by the rail yard and county roads) should be mapped and monitored. Board members asked that the water‑quality section reference the public‑works/stormwater chapter, which includes more detailed implementation steps for MS4 compliance and outfall mapping.

On golf courses and sports fields: board members worried about nutrient and chemical loading from turf management. Staff suggested encouraging both public and private facilities to pursue recognized environmental certifications (examples noted in the discussion: Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary and similar programs) and to include environmental practices in future city lease renewals for properties the city owns and leases to third parties.

On fireworks and perchlorate contamination: public comments and board members raised the possible impact of fireworks on lake water quality. The board added a goal to “explore and implement more environmentally friendly fireworks alternatives” with the longer‑term objective of reducing and, where feasible, eliminating perchlorate and other contamination from events on or over the lake.

What’s next: Staff will fold the board’s direction into a revised draft of the growth‑policy water‑quality section, adding an explicit periodic‑reporting objective and language that references WLI and other partners. The board asked staff to preserve discretion in how objectives are implemented (for example, using WLI work where possible) and to include implementation tasks and funding sources in the later action plan that will accompany the policy.

Why it matters: Whitefish Lake and the Whitefish River are central to the community’s recreation economy and drinking‑water considerations. The board’s choices about whether and how the city compiles monitoring data, uses outside expertise, and includes targeted objectives in the growth policy will shape future regulatory steps (zoning, permit review, annexation conditions) and the public’s access to information about water quality.