What's NewPlan B PresentationSearch the WebpageFlood Video Links
Home PageRiver Issues
About the AuthorAsk the Angry CitizenDocument DirectoryDwelley TributeFred Slipper SoliloquiesGlossary of Flood WordsHistorical ArticlesLinksPhoto GalleryQuote of the MonthRain Gauge
E-mail the AuthorE-mail List for UpdatesE-mail Webmaster

 

What's New

This webpage is to inform readers of updates to the website.  The updates will remain for a period of three months and then will be replaced with the following month.

Downloadable Readers

 Microsoft Word Reader Icon   Microsoft Excel Reader Icon   Microsoft PowerPoint Reader Icon

Date

Title

Summary

March 2016
General Webpage Updates for March 2016
  Issues Page New trial transcripts posted to Halverson Trial Transcripts/Pleadings Issue Page
 
February 2016
General Webpage Updates for February 2016
  Photo Gallery New section in the Photo Gallery of 2003 Samish River flooding aerial photos.
 
October 2015
Guest Documents
10/8/2015
NEW
Property Casualty 360° - Why don’t property owners have flood insurance? “Studies indicate that one out of five people believe flood is covered under their homeowner’s policy. This suggests the majority of property owners understand they can only receive flood insurance by purchasing it separately. [Bankrate.com]
“After Superstorm Sandy, interviews with some homeowners revealed they simply didn’t purchase flood insurance because it lacked the two coverages they felt were necessary: Basement coverage and additional living expense. ”
July 2015
Skagit County Documents
4/1/2015 Skagit County Commissioners Letter, RE: GI Study Parameters

The Board of County Commissioners received your request to support a waiver to exceed 3X3X3 parameters for both schedule and funding. Skagit County respectfully declines to support the waiver as presented. We have thoroughly supported the 3X3X3 rule since its inception which came at great financial cost to Skagit County, our citizens, and our partners in floodplain management.”

See also: 6/17/2015 Skagit County Commissioners Letter Terminating Involvement in the Corps of Engineers GI Study Process

6/17/2015 Skagit County Commissioners Letter Terminating Involvement in the Corps of Engineers GI Study Process “The Skagit River General Investigation's Feasibility Phase began in 1997. Through the study's cost share agreement and subsequent amendments, Skagit County and the Corps agreed to a $14,465,180 total study cost with the Corps serving as the study lead and the County serving as the nonfederal sponsor. After 18 years and reaching the lid of the cost share agreement, we are still awaiting a final plan.

“In April 2012, the Corps reinvigorated the study with the 3/3/3 rule, meaning feasibility studies would be completed in three years, for three million dollars, while integrating the three levels of the Corps. Skagit County agreed to this process and contributed our final $1,500,000 of the total study costs in cash.

See also:
4/1/2015 Skagit County Commissioners Letter, RE: GI Study Parameters
January 2015
Dike District 12 Shoreline Substantial Permit Documents
1/7/2015 Appellant City Of Sedro-Woolley's Reply to Skagit County Staff Report

“The bottom line is that the project at issue cannot be viewed as necessary, or integral, to the GI study, as that process is far from over. In addition, if the instant project is built prior to completion of the GI Study, the options available as part of that process will have been unnecessarily limited; it is extremely unlikely that the levee alterations as sought by Dike District 12 would be reversed once built. In sum, to go forward with the instant project in advance of the completion of the comprehensive GI Study would be putting the proverbial cart before the horse. ... It is apparent that the response to remand considerations (a) and (b) support Sedro-Woolley's contention that the proposed project will simply divert floodwater from Burlington and Mount Vernon, to upstream areas. There has been little or no mitigation proposed by Dike District 12 for this increase in flood waters to areas that have historically not flooded. In addition, as Sedro-Woolley has argued previously, the proposed project should not proceed in isolation from the actions taken resulting from the GI Study, whatever the final form of those actions may be.

1/7/2015 Intervenor City of Burlington's Joinder in Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12's Responses to Skagit County's Findings of Fact “In this motion, Intervenor City of Burlington adopts said Responses and incorporates by reference as if fully realleged herein, Dike District No. 12's Responses filed in this action.”
1/7/2015 Intervenor City of Burlington's Joinder In Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12's List of Witnesses To Be Called At Time of Hearing “In this motion, Intervenor City of Burlington adopts said list of witnesses and incorporates by reference as if fully realleged herein, Dike District No. 12's list of witnesses filed in this action.”
1/7/2015 DD12 List of Witnesses to be Called at Time of Hearing Among other witnesses will be John Semrau, P.E.; Malcolm Leytharn, Ph.D., P.E.; City of Burlington officials, and Cathie Desjardin, “an employee of the Anny Corps of Engineers in the Seattle District, Emergency Management Division.”
1/7/2015 DD12 Applicant/Respondent Dike Dtstric1 No. 12's Response To Skagit County’s Findings of Fact “Unless there can be some immediate approval by NMFS that the County has adequately consulted, the applicant Dike District 12 wou1d move the Hearing Examiner for a continuance of this hearing date to allow additional time for the County, NMFS, and parties to resolve this issue and to present to the Hearing Examiner clear evidence that item number c) on the BCC Remand Order bas been satisfied.”
1/14/2015 Sedro-Woolley Witness & Exhibit List Sedro-Woolley will call three witnesses and one exhibit - the Skagit County staff report with attachments.
1/29/2015 Hearing Examiner Order Granting Applicant's Amended Motion for Continuance “The Applicant/Respondent, Skagit County Dike, Drainage and Irrigation District No. 12, has filed an amended motion (with supporting affidavit) requesting the hearing dates be stricken and that this matter be re-set for hearing at a future time. Appellant Sedro-Woolley concurs in the motion. The Examiner finds that good cause has been shown for granting the motion. Accordingly, the hearing dates of February 4, 5 and 6 are stricken and the matter is continued until the parties advise that the matter is ready to be brought on for hearing.
General Webpage Updates for January 2015
  Issues Page New documents posted to Dike District 12 Levee Substantial Development Permit Issues Page
New Issues Page completed: 2014 Draft Feasibility GI Study Comments Draft Index