Bill offering three-year statute of limitations on shoreline work draws environmental opposition

Sen. Greg Hertz (Senate District 7) told the Local Government Committee that Senate Bill 168 creates a three-year statute of limitations after completion of construction for many lakeshore structures — docks, boat houses, retaining walls and similar works — while excluding illegal constructions that cause "documented material harm" to shoreline stability, water quality, navigation or aquatic life.

"So this bill might look familiar to some of you who were here last session because it did get all the way to the governor's desk, and then he decided to veto it," Hertz said, explaining revisions made after discussions with the governor's office and other stakeholders.

Proponents including Mark Taylor, a Helena attorney who worked on earlier drafts, argued the bill converts a straight grandfather approach into a statute of limitations that would provide landowners with stability and certainty. "This bill converts it from a straight grandfather to a statute of limitations, which I think is an appropriate way to deal with this," Taylor said.

Opponents — including the Montana Environmental Information Center, the Montana Association of Counties and Missoula County officials — said the three-year window would let violations go unaddressed, would shift monitoring burdens to citizen complainants and could allow environmental harms to emerge after the statutory window closes. Laura Collins of the Environmental Information Center warned the requirement to prove negative impacts would add time and cost to enforcement and could tempt property owners to ignore permitting. "This 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.

Missoula County's shoreline program administrator, Matt Heimel, told the committee the bill's requirement that harms be "documented" creates a problem because adverse impacts to lakeshore stability and aquatic life can appear years after construction. He said the bill could shift enforcement toward litigation and place a heavy burden on counties and citizen monitors.

The sponsor and some proponents argued the bill contains exceptions to the statute of limitations for illegal work that causes material harm and discussed inspection and permit completion best practices. The committee heard extensive questioning about how "documented material harm" would be defined and whether current statutory enforcement tools (district court complaint authority and misdemeanor penalties under the Lakeshore Protection Act) are sufficient.

Sen. Hertz closed by saying the change contains common-sense protections for property owners while still allowing enforcement where construction causes obvious harms, and he asked the committee to advance the measure.

Next steps: The committee closed the SB 168 hearing and accepted testimony; the bill is positioned for further committee consideration.