Whitefish Council Approves Water Master Plan Despite Dewatering Concerns

The Whitefish city council on Monday night unanimously approved the city’s 2026 Water Master Plan without any changes despite local watershed advocates urging city officials to take greater action to protect water levels in the two Haskill Creek tributaries used by the city.

Councilors assured those who voiced concerns that they’re taking the outcry about the city’s dewatering of Second and Third Creeks seriously — an issue advocates say has been raised repeatedly with little meaningful action from the city over the last 15 years.

One of the main requests from those looking to further protect the two Haskill Creek tributaries is the installation of a radio telemetry diversion management system to allow for real-time monitoring and adjustment of water withdrawals from Second and Third Creeks. 

While the Water Master Plan prioritizes a different project to address water levels in the tributaries — one that would utilize an actuated valve at the water treatment plant to slow down the water coming from Second and Third Creeks and back it up into First Creek — councilors asserted the city hasn’t completely ruled out a radio telemetry system, which is an automated, wireless network used to monitor, track and control water diversions from a central location using radio-frequency signals.

The city council, in an Aug. 6 budget work session, earmarked an additional $50,000 in the water fund to continue evaluating the radio telemetry system alternative and determine an accurate cost estimate for the potential project.

“This is not a plan that is cast in marble, and I’m satisfied with the current presentation,” Councilor Giuseppe Caltabiano said ahead of the Water Master Plan’s approval Monday. “We can adopt this master plan tonight, and we can still direct the staff to, in the coming months or year, evaluate telemetry as an additional feature. Remote communications with satellite infrastructure might become much more approachable and affordable as technology moves forward, so I wouldn’t be too concerned of what the status quo is tonight.”

“We’ll have reports about whether or not [radio telemetry] is going to work and about the drilling of wells and things like that in the future,” Councilor Rebecca Norton added. “I’m bringing this up publicly because the public is here and concerned, and so I just want them to know that we are aware and that we will have follow up on what they’re saying.”

The charge for adjustments to the city’s Water Master Plan draft was led by the Haskill Basin Watershed Council (HBWC), who, in a nearly 30-page report, outlined what it sees as key changes needed in the draft in order to combat dewatering and protect tributary health in the basin. In addition to the installation of a radio telemetry diversion management system, the council advocated for increasing use of the city’s existing Whitefish Lake pumping system as an alternative municipal water source. 

In the report, the Haskill council stated that if adopted as is, the city’s water plan would reject the HBWC’s “most important proposals, without adequate consideration for the impacts on Haskill Creek,” and perpetuate existing city water system operating procedures that “seriously harm the creek, its tributaries, fishery, banks, vegetation, and floodplain.”

John Phelps, the chair of the HBWC, echoed the report’s sentiments and recommendations at Monday night’s council meeting.

“It’s obvious, and I think the evidence is obvious, that Second Creek and Third Creek have been dewatered a lot, sometimes for months at a time,” Phelps told councilors. “That’s just not consistent with the community and the city council or city entity that believes strongly in maintaining water quality. You’ve got to have water to have water quality, and if there’s no water in those creeks, you can’t even talk about water quality.”

Samantha Tappenbeck, a resource conservationist with the Flathead Conservation District, and Mike Koopal, the executive director of the Whitefish Lake Institute, also advocated for city councilors to take a second look at the water plan before approval, with Tappenbeck supporting the HBWC’s calls for a radio telemetry system. 

“This is a really good engineering report. … the problem is this is an engineering report, whereas this is a joint engineering and natural resource management scenario,” Koopal said. “We can’t just look at the engineering fixes without addressing the natural resource concerns. You pull out a thread in the engineering realm, and you can start to unravel other things.”

During the public hearing, Alan Wendt from AE2S, the water engineering firm that worked on the Water Master Plan, reminded meeting-goers that the plan is an overview for the next 20 years and certainly not set in stone.

“Every year, the city will come back and they’ll look at the [Capital Improvement Plans] and decide if this is appropriate this year,” Wendt said. “They could come along and they could say we need to do an update to this plan in two years and four years. Usually, you see your municipalities update it every five years, so it’s not set in stone. It’s actually a living document.”

Moving forward, Wendt said it will be key for people to truly understand the costs associated with using less water from Haskill Creek, noting tough decisions will likely be on the horizon.

“I would love for there to be all the water in Haskill Creek forever, but I think the city is going to have some difficult choices, and unfortunately, it’s going to come down to an economic analysis,” Wendt said. “Do you have the economic fortitude to quit using Haskill Creek water, or use less Haskill Creek water? The initial numbers I’m looking at aren’t very promising for the city. It’s going to be a tough pill to swallow.”

[email protected]