Document lists the flood control studies and the main theme looked at in each study.

The documents were created from USGS flow records and Corps of Engineers log records kept during flood events. 1995 was done first in real time and then with 12 hours deleted from the Mt. Vernon column to show the impacts of decisions made by PSE and the Corps.

The documents were created from the field notebook used by Mr. Stewart in 1922-1923 and from documents obtained from USGS files that were used to write the Whitepaper which follows.

This 52 page research paper was written to analyze just exactly what Mr. Stewart did in his 1923 report. The overall conclusion reached is that we should abandon his work product as Skagit County and the Corps recommended in 1924, and utilize the 80 years of gage records we have at The Dalles.

Originally published as Chapter 2 of my book however over the years a few more quotes were added along the way. It will be added to from time to time as meaningful quotes concerning the flood issue are located. Many are expected to be used from the historical newspaper articles.

This paper deals with the failure of FEMA to enforce its regulations and promoting growth in the floodplain.

On April 12, 2005 I attended a public meeting where staff presented where the County is with respect to their flood control project. At the end of the meeting I was asked by the Chairman to submit a written memo on what I had observed and what direction I thought the County should go.

Using the Historical Newspaper Article Index I pulled out just the articles that dealt with the historical formation of countywide flood control zone districts.

This is perhaps the most comprehensive collection of historical information on individual flood events of the Skagit River ever assembled. 98% of this document comes from direct quotes obtained from local newspapers.

The purpose of this document is to look at historical articles and try and determine how much rain it takes to create a flood on the Skagit River. The best answer to the question of how much rain it takes is “It depends.”

This document was first created in July 2002.  It has now been supplemented with the historical newspaper articles concerning this issue. The bottom-line is that Skagit County has never been able to afford this project.

This paper is an attempt to document some of the history of the Skagit River according to mostly government documents obtained from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. On occasion it will also contain information obtained from local historical newspaper articles. It is a factual issue oriented paper addressing the log jams, boat traffic, commerce, logging, agriculture, dam building, flood events of the “early days” and much more.

This letter was prepared in response to the letter written by Colonel Debra M. Lewis to FEMA re: hydrology analysis.

This paper was created primarily from transcripts of Mr. Stewarts field notebook and a set of handwritten notes found in his files.  It is further documentation that supports the usage of the 80 years of gage records rather then the estimates submitted by Mr. Stewart of the 1897, 1909, 1917 and 1921 flood events in determining the 100 year flood flows on the Skagit River.

Document highlights some of the facts we have uncovered due to historical research.

This document looks at 46 years of Skagit County history, 20 of which actual dredging (sidecasting method) was being done.  It explores all the reasons local people wanted it done and all the reasons the Corps of Engineers says it cannot be done for flood control purposes.

This paper was originally authored in 1996.  Skagit County may wish to consider this as a possible avenue to pursue for impacted property owners affected by any proposed flood control project.

This document was also prepared using the historical information obtained from local newspaper articles. It documents the construction of the dams and their impacts on flood events.

My reflections on my trip to Washington D.C. Wherein I got to watch my federal government do what they do best... which is absolutely nothing.

Mr. Slipper's declaration documents the fact that not all of the homes in Hamilton had water in them in 1921 (See 12/24/21 C.H.) and that the house he grew up in only had water in it in 1921 to the depth of a couple of inches until the 1990 flood when it had 16 inches. 

This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1923 work product. The only changes that were made were the font was changed from Courier 10 to Times New Roman 12 and the spacing was changed from double space to 1.5 in order to save space.  Footnotes were added to indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original presumably from Corps of Engineers employees.  NOTE:  You can do word searches on this document.

This assemblage of pictures is to document how narrow the canyons are where the dams were built in order to emphasize the probability and likelihood of these areas being subject to serving as collection points for major flood blockages due to log jams, landslides, ice jams or debris flows all of which could have contributed to the Indian legend floods of 1820 and 1856 just like The Dalles contributed to either the 1897 or 1906 flood as documented in Mr. Stewart's field notes.  (See  11/19/1896 SCT, 3/5/1936 C.H. and James E. Stewart Field Notes.

This document was filed with FERC in response to FERC's Relicensing efforts on the Baker River Dams and their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).  Through the use of graphics produced by this website it is hoped that FERC, the Corps and PSE can see the minimal environmental impacts and maximum flood control impacts additional storage can mean to the taxpayers of our country.

Two years worth of additional research culminated in this now 90 page document.  All of the "new" information gathered further supported the conclusions reached when the paper was originally published in 2004.  Reasons the Stewart data should be rejected include but are not limited to: Doesn’t conform to local history; Report is in conflict with Stewart’s handwritten notes and field notebook; WSP 612 (1929) and WSP 1527 (1961) both use Stewart’s 1918 and 1923 data. (You can’t get to the 1923 figures by using 1918 data.); Reports (1923 and 1961) were never completed; Stewart paid directly by Skagit County not USGS (Skagit owns his work product); No measurements taken between Baker River and The Dalles; Stewart’s work product rejected by Corps of Engineers in 1924 and 1951; Determination of “N-factor” at Sedro-Woolley inappropriate for The Dalles something Mr. Stewart himself was concerned about.

Letter tries to show Congress that the storage behind the Baker Dams is a reasonable, responsible, economical and much needed action for effective flood control in Skagit County.

This is a retyped version of Mr. Stewart's 1918 work product.   Footnotes were added to explain terms and indicate handwritten notes that appeared on the original.  NOTE:  You can do word searches on this document.

This is a retyped version of Water Supply Paper 1527 (WSP 1527). The only changes were those of formatting and two footnotes were added to explain technical details.  NOTE:  You can do word searches on this document.

This document represents all references to the BPA contained in the 28,000 electronic documents in our database. It clearly shows that the BPA does not want to pay for flood control for Skagit County. Given the enormous impact the dams have on flood damages, this outrageous position of yet another federal agency involved with the flood control issue should be condemned by all.

One of the most contentious issues in 2007-2008 will be the placement of a floodway in the lower valley in accordance with the NFIP regulations.  This documents represents a small sampling of historic documents that address this issue.  As the documents clearly show a floodway designation was in fact made in the 1980's however was never enforced.

This document analyzes the guidelines contained in the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, commonly referred to as 17B as they apply to using the Stewart data in computing flood flow analysis on the Skagit River.

Overall, while the document could use some tweaking, it is the best analysis of the historical flood flows ever performed on the Skagit River.

Proposed agreement for Plan B involving power-sharing among governing bodies of Skagit County.

Channel 300-800 ft. wide, 100 year floodplain 5,280-15,840 ft. (1-3 miles) wide, how deep do you think the ditch has to be?

Updated to add slides showing how much cubic yards were taken out of the Skagit and about the ships dredging the Skagit and removing snags "for navigational purposes".

This document identifies the examinations, reports, studies, GDM, and other documents written about the Skagit River and was updated with 34 new reports spanning between 4/9/2003 and 2/28/2008. Most of these documents I have copies of and am willing to make available upon request. The original list of Jan. 24 1999 was compiled with Corps of Engineers assistance.

“If the Salmon is to ever reach their historic levels in the Skagit River we must employ better logging and agricultural practices, curtail urban drainage and pollution, re-create the natural estuaries, increase spawning habitat areas, do a better job of regulating the flows from the dams and severely curtail the placing of nets in the river. I absolutely believe that unless these practices are instituted the Skagit Salmons demise is not only apparent but guaranteed. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.”

“Corps understatement at meeting, “Doing anything with us is kind of complicated.” ”

Proposed modifications with all additions are in blue, all deletions in red strikeout.

Metsker Maps of Skagit River basin from Burlington to Rockport annotated with known locations where, according to his field notebook, James E. Stewart surveyed for flood elevation marks in 1922.

“I take great issue with the following verbiage that I am assuming was handed out at the Dike and Drainage Sub-committee: “The Nookachamps floodplain historically has provided various levels of natural storage, depending on the magnitude of the flood peak and shape of the hydrograph, to significantly reduce flood peaks.” (Source: Skagit River Flood Reduction Feasibility Study, PIE April 2006) The truth of the matter is that there is very little that is “natural” about the storage in the Nookachamps.”

Attached hereto is an “Unofficial” Transcript of the April 9, 2014 Skagit County Hearing Examiner Motion Hearing.  The tape of the hearing was made by myself since the County’s recording equipment has proven to be unreliable on more than one occasion.  The recording was transcribed by SkagitRiverHistory.com.  After the initial transcription we listened to the recording six more times for accuracy purposes.  Where the recording was weak and we could not understand or had to guess at what the person said we inserted the word “Unintelligible”.   We have published a link to the audio itself which can be found here.  If anyone feels they can do a more accurate transcript please feel free to give it a go.

Helped Skagit County Government win "Project of the Year" award.

Skagit County Commissioners issued plaque awards for our involvement with the Historical Skagit River Flood Research.

Awards ceremony.

Article regarding historical newspaper archive and web site by Skagit County Government.

This index is a compilation of 30 newspaper articles from the Skagit Valley Herald concerning the 1979 Levee Improvement Project.  It should be considered must reading for all city, county, and Federal employees that were not part of the 1979 project and are currently working on the flood control issue on the Skagit River.

Compilation of articles describing the FEMA flood insurance base flood elevation and floodway determination made by FEMA in 1984.

This report is significant in that it was the first study devoted entirely to the Avon By-Pass concept and it was authored by private enterprise.

Acknowledges breaking of levees saved bridge.  Felt that when levees were improved they would lose bridge.  Wanted to build bypass.

Acknowledges "enormous size" of floods however due to "infrequency" and "short duration" thought locals had more to lose then railroad so didn't want to get "overly" involved due to probable cost to railroad.

NPRR sent Herzog to Corps public meeting in Mt. Vernon.  He reported, "Nothing of any importance transpired."  Corps only interested in navigation improvements not flood control.

Avon By-Pass project to cost $1,832,000.  Locals said they couldn't afford it.  NPRR wanted taxpayers to pay for improvements to their bridge.

Tells President of March 2nd meeting in which By-Pass plan was "quite unfavorable" amongst those in attendance due to the cost of the project.  Felt plan would be "indefinitely postponed".

Corps of Engineers reported that the By-Pass proposed in 1936 did not meet their minimum cost benefit ratio.

Avon By-Pass again being considered.  GNRR concerned about involvement of Milo Moore (Fisheries Director) in development scheme in Fidalgo and Padilla Bays.

Avon By-Pass cost soared to $23,940,000.  $1.5 million was for improvements to GNRR bridges.

Letter discusses how Avon By-Pass plan would impact their bridges.

Letter attaches 11/8/66 Seattle PI article re: $5,804,000 levee improvement project approved by Congress and President Johnson.  No indication in any record that project was ever constructed.

This report relied heavily on the unpublished 1923 Stewart Report (See Stewart 1923 Report -- Retyped Version) and the people of Skagit County have been paying for it ever since.     ". . .the levees, to protect as much land as possible, were placed too close to the river on both sides, thus unduly restricting the channel.  A flood volume exceeding about 140,000 cfs below Sedro Woolley is likely to cause a breach in the levees.  A volume in excess of this, if retained in the floodway by higher levees, would endanger the bridge of the Great Northern Railway. . ."  . . .  "Floods of from 210,000 to 220,000 cfs may be expected about once every 25 years."  . . . "Diversion of the river would be possible at some point below Sedro Woolley, the diversion channel to run generally west into Padilla Bay."  . . .  Discharge and other data of value in connection with a study of plans for flood control are found in USGS WSP's and in an uncompleted report on Skagit River floods prepared by Mr. J.B. Stewart, of the USGS, jointly for that bureau and Skagit County, a copy of which has been furnished this office.  . . .  "No freight boats now go above Mount Vernon."  . . . "The Skagit River delta contains some of the richest farming land in the State."  100 year flood at Sedro-Woolley = 264,000 cfs.  500 year flood = 321,000 cfs. 

NOTE:  See also Notice and Minutes of Public Hearing In Connection With Preliminary Examination of "Skagit River, Washington, With A View To The Control Of Its Floods" Directed By Flood Control Act of May 31, 1924; Robert E.L. Knapp, Skagit County Engineer, Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing; H.L. Willis, Skagit River Improvement Committee Chairman Testimony for 11/26/1924 Hearing.

" . . .local interests are now unable to provide the required cooperation and that no modification of the physical features of the project will so reduce the cost to local interests as to make it possible for them to supply the required cooperation at this time."  (pg 1) 

". . .the February 1932 flood at The Dalles was measured as 147,000 second-feet, with a run-off during the 3 days of highest discharge of 602,000 acre-feet. It has been estimated that, if Shannon and Diablo reservoirs had not been in operation, the crest discharge at The Dalles would have been about 182,000 secondfeet, . . . (¶50 pg 18)  1940 LAND VALUES as determined in 1930 =". . .an average of $208 an acre." (¶56 pg 30)  The spring flood of 1894, which destroyed crops valued at $1,500,000, prompted the settlers to extend their system of dikes. The flood of 1897 washed out the roadbed of the Great Northern Railway between Burlington and Sedro-Woolley, flooded part of Mount Vernon, and caused a heavy loss of livestock and property above Concrete. The flood of 1906 caused a loss of $250,000.. The discharge at Sedro-Woolley during the 1897 flood was slightly greater than for the flood of 1906, so the damages resulting from the 1897 flood were probably on the order of $300,000. The flood of 1909 caused damages conservatively estimated at $1,500,000. It ruined many farms, destroyed several hundred head of livestock and washed out many miles of dikes and drainage ditches ,. The Great Northern Railway embankment between Burlington and Mount Vernon was washed away and serious damage done to the State highway, That part of Mount Vernon west of the river was entirely flooded.  (¶59 pgs 30-31)  River Improvement Fund -- "The work done by Mr. Stewart was also paid for from this fund."  On March 2, 1937 " . . . county officials stated that the county's financial position was such that it would be impossible at that time for the county to furnish the local cooperation required for the construction of the Avon By-pass as authorized under the existing project."  (¶77 pg 39)  It is estimated that a channel from Sedro-Woolley to Skagit Bay via the North Fork of Skagit River, adequate to carry safely a discharge of 220,000 second-feet, would require the excavation of approximately 56,000,000 cubic yards of material, and the acquisition of about 3,000 acres of agricultural land for right-of-way. (¶103 pg 47)  "...these same flood waters, under present conditions, reach Padilla Bay after flowing overland, . . ."  (¶110 pg 49)

NOTE TO REVIEWER:  This is a very poor copy of the original and very difficult to read.  It helps to enlarge it to 125-150%.  This document looked at the history of a navigation project between Mt. Vernon and Concrete originally authorized by Congress on May 13, 1947.  The final results are in this report as well as a lot of statistical history on logging and local businesses.

"Tug operators advised that a 100-ft channel width and a 6 foot depth would be sufficient for foreseeable navigation requirements." (¶13) ... Approx 1,520,000 CY of material would be dredged. (¶15 & 21)  Estimated that annual maintenance dredging would consist of 380,000 CY.  (¶22b)  Two mills at SW sell annually, an average of 10,500,000 board-feet of lumber to the US Army. (¶27)  Total annual benefits of barge canal would be $592,000. (¶28)  Annual cost $474,000. (¶29) Amt needed to complete study $45,000. (¶30) The Skagit River navigation study has been authorized and intermittently underway since 1947 In view of this fact ... an effort should be made to complete the study as soon as practicable.  ... $15,000 needed to complete the study be allocated early in fiscal year 1964. (¶31)

A comprehensive plan, completed in 1971, called for increasing Skagit River flood control through use of reservoir capacity provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company's Upper Baker hydroelectric power project in addition to the 16,000 acre-feet of storage space now available during the winter flood season. The detailed feasibility investigation being completed by the Corps of Engineers was in follow-up to the comprehensive study and undertaken under the same authority.  . . .  Land use zoning, development restrictions, flood proofing and early flood warning are flood plain management elements of this alternative which would be continued by Skagit County and the State of Washington.  . . . Baker Lake would be lowered to provide a total of 74,000 acre-feet of flood control storage between 15 November and 1 March each year.  . . .  Although increased flood control capability has the potential of creating increased development pressure on flood plain lands, especially those close to urban areas and those now protected by dikes and levees, this pressure is expected to be minimal.  . . . However, the application of stringent flood plain management techniques and flood plain zoning by Skagit County, as called for in the recommended plan, should reduce the likelihood and severity of such losses.  . . . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service late in the study asked that flood control drawdown occur earlier than necessary for flood control in order to benefit Baker Lake salmon production.  This earlier drawdown would increase power losses and, therefore, would have to be justified by fishery enhancement benefits. No current provision exists in the FPC license for such a project operation change.  Because of this and the lack of data on fish production, the Corps study did not evaluate the early drawdown proposal.  . . .  Detailed engineering, economic and environmental impact studies were conducted over the past 2 years . . . Land use. The increased flood protection provided by this alternative (additional 58,000 ac ft storage) would not be sufficient to allow relaxation of current restrictions on intensive developments in flood hazard areas. Therefore, no effect on land use is expected.

COMMENTS RE ADDITIONAL STORAGE

False sense of security. Encourages development of flood plain for uses incompatible with flooding.  (Sierra) Would create a false sense of security which could induce continued building in floodprone areas. (R. Hammond, SWCD)  . . .  Not enough protection. Only corrects about 8 percent of the total flood damage of the basin. (Dept. Ecol.) Watershed above Upper Baker includes less than 7 percent of area of the Skagit at Mt. Vernon and about 10 percent of runoff volume. This degree of control would be small under severe conditions.  (SWCD)  . . .  Storage will increase. The additional flood storage could make the difference between the (a) disaster or high river stage. (PNWWA) Additional flood storage at Upper Baker will not adversely affect the environmental values of Skagit Valley. (EPA) It is only a start on the overall control program for Skagit, and its benefits will more than justify the costs.  (SWCD)

The documents represent what happens when there are one too many agencies trying to comment on a flood project when one of the agencies doesn't know anything about the flood issue.

The Dept. of Ag stated, "In addition, the Department of the Army, in their response to the study report, pointed out that designation of the Sauk River would preclude construction of, a flood control storage project on the river. However, alternatives to the Sauk River site exist which would provide the same degree of flood protection for downstream areas.

". . . based on a review of the authorizing document and assuming such extension is justified and desired by local interests, extension of the project that far via a phase 1 report would require a significant Post Authorization Change report requiring Congressional action." . . . An alternative course of action would be to proceed with a GDM report covering the general project area reconsidering the degree of protection to be provided. At the same time preauthorization studies could proceed on the area upstream under the authority of the PSFAW study or under Section 216. Such a procedure would permit early construction capability and at the same time cover the full flood control needs of the area."

This document walks you through the 1st and 2nd iterations of Corps thinking on proposed projects.

Your letter of 9 April 1976 provided detailed comments on the Swinomish Channel Maintenance Dredging draft environmental statement. Your comments concerning the draft statement were not included in .the final environmental statement because we received them approximately 8 months after the deadline for public comment. Although we have discussed the comments with representatives of the Swinomish Tribal Community and various resource agency personnel, we delayed our formal response until we had examined all sources of information which were available.. . . .Response: The Goat Island dike, built in 1937, reduced the amount of Skagit River 'water reaching the fishtraps and oyster beds on the southern and southwestern shores of the reservation. Furthermore, the amount of Skagit River water flowing through the Swinomish Channel. was greatly reduced.    "For the period 1890 to 1970, and especially since 1937, most of the sediment from the North Fork of the Skagit has passed between Goal and lka Islands, fanned out, and come to rest on the cast bank of. Saratoga Passage."

There have been many of us that have wondered for almost a decade now why our Federal partners started giving Skagit County the cold shoulder around the same time that the County hired Pacific International Engineers. (See DC Trip Experience and at the urging of a former Mt. Vernon Mayor see also  Concerns about Pacific International Engineering (PIE).)

E-mail chain explaining Corps process.

“Mitigation might also be required under the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act. If the mitigation features are necessary to get the permit or concurrence they might be shifted into the basic project features account. The reason is that the project cannot legally be built without these features.”

“The simulations performed represent a fixed bed analysis so erosion and sedimentation in the floodplain are not modeled. Culverts under roads are also not modeled. The reason that culverts are not modeled for overland flow is that the capacities of the culverts are small compared with the overbank discharge. The FLO-2D model does not contain any sea dike failure scenarios and do not account for pump stations or any other flood fighting techniques to reduce the flood damage.”

Listing of where our money has been spent.

PDF of 123-slide presentation to August 2008 Skagit County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee explaining potential options to reduce the Skagit River Flood Risk.  Video is also available from Skagit21.

Shows what the Corps spent their time and money on during 4th quarter fiscal year 2008.

“Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments on the Skagit River General Investigation Preliminary Measures. The team is evaluating all of the comments and responses will be posted. . . . The team intends to use the comments in refining the 37 preliminary measures and combining the best measures into alternatives and a recommended plan.”

Overview of Corps of Engineers Seattle District's attempts to address Skagit River hydrology.

“...alternatives I prefer and why: 

“Preliminary Alternative 2 Non-structural and dam storage: I like that there is minimal impact to the urban areas and the prime agricultural land downstream of the cities. It seems that this approach would also allow for more salmon habitat restoration upstream of Burlington.

“Preliminary Alternative 3 Joe Leary Slough bypass: I like that the floodwaters are diverted away from Burlington and Mt. Vernon.

“*Features ...I least prefer:

“Preliminary Alternative 2  No features of concern.

The non-structural alternative is one that takes care of a lot of the problems that man (not Mother Nature) has created.  (See  The Realities of Flood Control in Skagit County)  Nookachamps/Sterling area people would not have flood waters in their homes due to the actions of Burlington and Mt. Vernon dike districts.  Additional storage and/or modification of dam operations is the one component of the GI Study that should be given priority over all other alternatives due to the fact that it is the one component that will benefit everyone in the floodplain.  Key in this study will be to answer the question did the Corps of Engineers use the wrong hydraulic figures in computing the Ross Lake amount of storage and should storage begin in October.  (See 8/14/1953 Corps document)  While we are on the subject of hydraulic figures, paramount to the completion of the GI Study should be a serious consideration that when the Corps changed its computations from Extreme Low Water to Mean Sea Level did the Corps fails to adjust the gage readings appropriately for historical flood events? (See Low Low Water in Puget Sound vs. Mean Sea Level)

Mission:  To create and advance mutually beneficial strategies that support the long-term viability of agriculture and salmon while reducing the risks of destructive floods.

Goal 1: Restore estuary habitats and functions in the tidal Skagit Delta needed to meet the Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan goal (approximately 2,380 acres is the remainder needed).

Goal 2: Reduce the risk of destructive flooding by implementing flood risk reduction alternatives that maximize river and estuary habitats and functions whenever possible and minimize the conversion of farmland.

“The NFIP does not invite motions for reconsideration. Where FEMA's regulations require new certified technical information, this is not a command to certify the existing information in FEMA's files. Rather, the regulations require appellants to certify new information so FEMA can conduct another analysis. This is precisely what appellants failed to do in this case. Instead, appellants attempt to force FEMA to reanalyze the existing data, hoping for a different result, without submitting any new certified technical data showing the first analysis contained mathematical or measurement errors, or physical conditions have changed. Because appellants did not submit new scientific or technical information, and what they did submit was not certified by an engineer or surveyor, appellants are relying on nothing but the data in FEMA's files. The district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a proper appeal with FEMA.”

“As you may be aware, the Preliminary FIS and FIRM for Skagit County are on hold until FEMA reassesses and develops alternative analyses for identifying flood hazard risks associated with unaccredited levees. Consequently, Mr. Thomas' request for an SRP review is premature because the Preliminary FIS and FIRM for Skagit County may change as a result of FEMA's reassessment of its levee analysis approaches.”
See also: FEMA FIRM Appeals Issues Page

“I would like to emphasize the point, that Mr. Knapp brought out in his paper, that before any highly scientific plan can be prepared for the protection of this valley from floods, it is necessary to have more authoritative information than we now have as to the amount of water carried by the river in time of floods. ... The information that was collected by Mr. Stewart and given in his report to the committee was excellent so far as the dots that he had to work upon permitted, but that data was necessarily more or less inaccurate.”  Colonel W. J. Barden, Colonel, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Engineer

“The farmers have tilled the soil up close to the banks of the river; the dikes are built there, and the problem of dredging presents a situation where there is no place adequate to waste the sand that is taken from the river bed.  In other words, it will result in an attempt to confine to too narrow an area the volume of water that must escape.  That was faulty planning, or lack of planning at the start.  But the expenditures have been made and the farmers are attempting from their own pockets to keep that situation intact and improve it.” [R. V. Welts, Chairman, Skagit County Planning Council]

“What we have now is a two-edge sword. The Skagit River is a real benefit to us, and on the other hand it is a constant hazard.” [Mr. Nordmark, Anacortes Chamber of Commerce]

Meeting to discuss potential Corps projects for the Skagit River originally authorized in 1966 by Congress and to receive citizen input.  See also 3/23/78 SVH for a meeting summary.

“To me, to live in a flood plain and act shocked when the floods come is ridiculous. To live in the flood plain without raising the buildings is ridiculous and to expect taxpayers all over the country to pay the bills because some folks in Skagit Valley just didn't build their town right, is obsured [absurd].  If you are going to spend $55 million plus $88,000.00 a year on management costs we had better get a solution to the problem and the most recent June 1979 brochure which you got there is a list of alternatives, only four lines in this brochure are used to gloss over the only alternative that I feel that would bring a long-term solution to this flood damage problem. That would be rezoning, flood-proofing and raising the structures.”  [Source: Bruce Stroker, Big Lake Resident]

“The Dames and Moore study discusses some kind of limitation on densities for development to allow flood flows through the area. I think that’s the big issue. When the city prepares an ordnance, does there have to be a limitation on density? If so, what form will that limitation take? Should the limitation be uniformly applied? I don’t know the answers to those and I assume that you don’t either. We need to know those answers in order to write a good ordnance.” (Pete Shanin, Chairman of the Burlington Land Use Committee) See also Dames & Moore Report )

“Our point is that we are stuck.  There’s not enough money out there.  We’ve got 11,600 flood prone communities out there.  Skagit Valley is not the most important one.  So they’re reluctant to spend any more money.  Compared to the Mississippi the rest of us are peanuts.”  (Herb McElvaine, FEMA)

“The problem, is that if you allow indiscriminate development in the floodplain, the problem is the same as what happens when you get into a full bath tub. You get into a bath tub the water goes up. If you build anywhere in the floodplain the water is going to be blocked, diverted, its got to go somewhere and its going to harm other people.” (Chuck Steele, FEMA)

“Lastly there is the FLOODWAY which in the case of Burlington is only the area that runs landward of the dike by fifty feet. When you’re landward of the dike and your looking towards the river essentially nothing can be built from that distance to the river.” (Steve Ladd, City Planner)

“We’re not here tonight to talk about the long term ramifications of these higher base flood elevations, but I’m dismayed by the effect that it is going to have on our tax base. You know, there’s no constituency for maintaining and growing the tax base. I don’t think you’ve run on that platform to get elected, but you know its one of those wonkish things that we all know is incredibly important to our kids and our grandkids to maintain the vitality of our economic basis.” [Chal Martin, City of Burlington Public Works Director]  TV10 video also available.

“We can't do anything. Our hands are completely off of it. If we form a flood control zone district it gives us some power to start doing something with our own problem locally. Up to now it has always been the Corps of Engineers or somebody distant from us who has wasted our taxpayers money doing all these studies. We are trying to correct this. If we don't make some chances we will be powerless to do anything about this.”

"... Skagit County's county-wide flood control zone will be an asset should any large projects, such as the Lower Levee Project or the Avon Bypass Project, be undertaken..." . . . "All of the Diking Districts and the County Engineering Department feel that we should keep working against the deauthorization of the Avon Bypass.

D. Effect on EQUITY

 - Who benefits from the project alternative, and who bears its costs?  (Project alternatives involve the shifting of risk and exposure from one group to another, such as, exposure to a rise in 100 year water surface elevation.)

E. FEASIBILITY

 - Is the project alternative politically feasible?  - Are the equity impacts of the project considered fair?  - Is accomplishment of the project goals considered worth the local share of implementation and annual management costs?

“Our point is that we are stuck.  There’s not enough money out there.  We’ve got 11,600 flood prone communities out there.  Skagit Valley is not the most important one.  So they’re reluctant to spend any more money.  Compared to the Mississippi the rest of us are peanuts.”  [Herb McElvaine, FEMA]