HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session October 17 20061 Whatcom County Council
2 Special Surface Water Work Session
3
4 October 17, 2006
5
6 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in
7 the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
8 Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11 Present: Absent:
12 Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
13 Dan McShane
14 Seth Fleetwood
15 Carl Weimer
16 Sam Crawford
17
18
19 SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2006 -025)
20
21 1. FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT
22
23 Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) Migration Lines
24
25 Bruce Roll, Public Works Director, stated the County is getting demands for flood
26 money that exceed the County's capacity to deliver. The County has to do flood work and
27 also stormwater work. Those two obligations force the Public Works Department to look at
28 where to spend time and energy in the future. They have been dipping into the Flood
29 Control Zone District monies. At this rate, the monies will be gone in the near future.
30 Focus on how and where to manage flood, knowing they don't have all the money in the
31 world.
32
33 Brenner asked for a spreadsheet that shows the monies they've spent from the flood
34 fee, by project. She would like to know where the money has gone. Roll stated they could
35 come up with that.
36
37 Crawford stated that on Saturday, at least four Councilmembers went out to look at
38 their property. They are aware of that situation from their perspective.
39
40 Paula Cooper, Flood Division Manager, submitted aerial photo of river (on file). They
41 will talk about river management lines. She read the presentation on river management
42 lines. The advisory committee has had six meetings on just this topic. There has been
43 some progress. They have more steps to take. She would like feedback from the Board of
44 Supervisors to make it easier for the advisory committee. She read the presentation on
45 what a river management line (RML) is and why they need a RML. It is a limit on channel
46 migration.
47
48 Brenner asked the difference between a channel ' migration line and river
49 management line. Cooper stated they used to call it a channel migration line when the
50 County adopted the plan. Since then, the State Department of Ecology enacted guidelines
51 that call for regulation channel migration zones. This isn't intended to be a regulatory line.
52 This is a flood district management line. That's why they changed the term. It's not meant
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 1
to be that regulatory line with regulatory implications. It's a guide for the flood district to
figure out how to spend flood district money.
Roll stated the two have to come together eventually, but the difficulty is talking
about the two at the same time. They will have to discuss what it means from a land use
perspective at some point, but not now. Another layer of issues will need to be addressed,
but don't do both at the same time.
Brenner asked why do the two separately when there are limited amounts of money.
Cooper stated the channel migration zone will go through the land use process and
Planning Commission. The flood district is involved more in river management. They had
to distinguish between the protection line and the land use regulation line. It is easier to do
a two -step process.
She continued the presentation on why they need a RML. The County has been
throwing a lot of money toward managing the river since the 1980's. This last year was a
big expenditure year. The fund balance is coming down. They strive to maintain a $5
million emergency reserve.
She read the presentation on background and types of flood hazards. Lateral erosion
can influence avulsion. Flooding can influence erosion. She read the presentation on lateral
erosion, hazard versus risk, the types of mitigation projects, and flood hazard management.
Brenner asked if lateral erosion could cause the kind of silt problem that is harmful to
salmon spawning. Cooper stated the argument goes both ways. It could be said that
lateral erosion is a natural, process that recruits spawning gravel and large woody debris
that build the habitat.
Brenner stated that it depends on the site and what is eroded. Cooper stated that is
correct. She continued the presentation on flood hazard management and on the assessed
values and annual cost of flood damage repair. Reach five is the overflow corridor from
Everson to Sumas. Damages there tend to dwarf damages in other reaches.
Crawford asked if those houses were destroyed in the 1990 flood in Sumas. Cooper
stated there could have been homes in some of the deeper areas, but she doesn't know for
sure.
Crawford asked if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stepped in.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it did.
Cooper read the presentation on historical flood hazard management mitigation costs
from 1990 to 2004.
Brenner asked how that amount spent compares with the amount of money collected
by the flood tax during those years. Cooper stated she would find out.
Weimer asked if this pie chart figure is just local sources. Cooper stated it includes
the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other sources. She would try to find that
information.
Paul Pittman, Public Works Department, gave a presentation (on Me) and stated the
first slide shows the historic channel location through 100 years. They learned the channel
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 2
I characteristics they were able to use in geomorphic interpretation. It also shows erosion
2 rates through time and everywhere that is former river bottom, which is subject to more
3 frequent flooding, higher erosion rates, and more frequent avulsion. The historical
4 migration area is a hazard area. They use the historical migration area to interpret
5 geomorphic interpretation. Over time, the river has amplitude that migrates downriver.
6 The historic migration zone (hmz) also shows erosion hazard potential for a 100 -year time
7 period, which fills the entire valley. This river has a lot of area where it may erode in the
8 future.
9
10 Brenner asked if some areas have been eroded in the past. Pittman indicated the
11 location on the map that was previously the river bottom.
12
13 Cooper stated the historic migration zone shows the river location in the last hundred
14 yea rs.
15
16 Pittman stated they looked also at potential avulsion channels, areas with a high risk,
17 and erosion as a dominant hazard. There is a lot of infrastructure to lose in this area. The
18 dominant risk in one reach is lateral erosion.
19
20 Brenner asked if the Nooksack Tribe is contributing to this work. Cooper stated she
21 doesn't know the history of funding to the projects in that area. They are trying to bring
22 that information up -to -date.
23
24 Pittman stated the attempt of the revetment work is to keep the river from eroding
25 laterally and taking out the infrastructure. At the Nugent's Corner reach, they've got many
26 potential avulsion areas across infrastructure. Avulsions occur more abruptly than lateral
27 erosion. The dominant hazard is avulsion.
28
29 Recent events required additional risk analysis. They looked at the clay bank areas,
30 which is the source for these potential failures. There are a lot of failures historically along
31 this bank. There is about a 500 -foot debris run out from the events of this year. They don't
32 know if the debris run out could be greater than 500 feet. There are topographic lows from
33 the area. There are two pinch points in the river. A pinch point, if blocked, can produce
34 flooding upstream at a greater depth.
35
36 Fleetwood asked what is a 500 -foot run out. Pittman stated it is a slope that came
37 down. The debris from the failure shot 500 feet out into the channel, and created a 500-
38 foot wide piece of land where the channel used to be.
39
40 Cooper stated that's the mechanism that increases the risk of avulsion at these
41 locations. The potential is that an unstable landslide will block the channel and force the
42 river to take a new path.
43
44 Crawford asked if those landslides normally occur during a big river event, and the
45 run out is under water, so they discover the run out after the water goes down. Cooper
46 stated that when the toe is gone, it creates an unstable vertical bluff. The water doesn't
47 have to push against the steep side of the cliff, although that helps wash away the toe,
48 which helps stabilize the slope.
49
50 Pittman stated that after the spring 2006 events, the channel was shoved 500 feet to
51 the north.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 1011712006, Page 3
1 Brenner asked if those areas would be a good place for some kind of revetment or
2 terrace. Cooper stated the scale of this slide is huge. It's difficult to come up with a
3 solution that would be safe and affordable to implement.
4
5 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a greater risk if all the revetment work were to
6 wash out. Cooper stated that for a long -term solution, they need to address the entire
7 curve. The ultimate goal would be to stabilize the toe so the slope is laid back, stable, and
8 will re- vegetate.
9
10 Pittman showed photographs of river locations where there was a failure of a clay
11 bank.
12
13 Brenner asked if one option is to let the failure happen. Cooper stated the most
14 cost - effective means to stabilize the bank would be to stabilize the toe and have the slope
15 lay itself back. The more work they do on the bluff, the more it will cost.
16
17 Pittman continued to state that it took about five years for the 1990's event to finish
18 eroding. This event is much larger, and may take ten years to erode. As they observe it,
19 the toe is eroding off.
20
21 Cooper stated it will take some time for it all to erode out.
22
23 Pittman stated they also observed an active channel that is about half of what it was
24 before the slide came down. Upstream, there is more backwater. That happened in 1990,
25 and the channel eventually took a new course.
26
27 They also did a hazard and risk analysis at the reach from Nugent's Corner to the
28 Everson reach. He indicated the location on a map. If they erode the line, it will increase
29 the opportunity for floods to get into the Sumas Valley. A 100 -year flood will leave the
30 Nooksack River. If they allow erosion to occur, the line could lengthen. The dominant
31 hazard here is lateral erosion because of its potential to alter flood elevations. There are
32 some avulsion channels, but they weren't inundated during the 100 -year flood. There are
33 many projects along this edge to manage the drainage divide line. They looked at the cost
34 to manage reach four over time. Mitigating lateral erosion has a high cost.
35
36 He read the presentation on the 1990 to 2006 management costs for past
37 management practices.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
40
41 Pittman continued to read the presentation historic cost versus confinement.
42
43 Brenner asked what triggers Corps involvement. Cooper stated it is active in the PLE
44 499 program. It is also involved when the County exceeds its resources during a flood.
45
46 Pittman continued the presentation on the costs versus confinement. They spend
47 more time and money on places that are more impinged. There is an inverse relationship
48 between impingement and cost. Depth and velocity are key components in scour. Greater
49 scour occurs in a narrow deep river. Scour is a key to getting a revetment to fail.
50
51 Brenner stated that if they selectively scalped to make the channel deeper and
52 wider, the less likely the river would flood and leave its banks. Pittman stated gravel bar
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 4
scalping in a confined system would be more effective at lowering the flood elevation than if
the channel is wide.
Brenner asked if they are able to talk about scalping. Cooper stated they did the
channel survey to document current conditions. Over time, as aggradation occurs, they can
resurvey to document a changed condition. For the entire river, it may be ten years before
they see significant aggradations. There may be some areas that may accumulate gravel in
a shorter time.
Crawford asked if the State Department of Transportation (DOT) makes sure their
infrastructure doesn't erode away. Pittman stated they did extensive scour analysis at that
area. They maintain their revetments.
McShane stated the DOT revetments are put down so deep that the scours can't get
to the bottom (inaudible). It costs a lot of money to get to that depth.
Brenner asked if the DOT would be interested in doing things that would protect the
bridge. Cooper stated the DOT has difficulty working outside of its right -of -way.
Cooper stated the next part of the presentation discusses what the Flood Control
Zone District Advisory Committee has done in the reach four area. The green line is a set of
lines that are the 1999 preliminary migration line. In 1999, they put the project on hold to
let the modeling catch up. The blue line is the drainage divide that controls the frequency
and magnitude of overflows to Canada. The green lines were unanimously recommended.
The blue hatched area is the historic migration zone and is entirely contained within the
recommended set of green lines. Throughout the reach, except near the bridges, the
channel has the historical migration amplitude. They would expect over the long term that
management costs would be lower because the river has less chance of being in conflict
with those edges.
Upstream of Nugent's Corner to Deming is more problematic for the committee. The
green line is the 1999 preliminary recommendation. The blue line is the width of the
meander amplitude. The pink areas show the project areas. The black line is a
recommendation from Diking District 2, which is the special district in this area. The historic
migration zone is indicated by a blue hatched area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if these lines are (inaudible). Cooper stated (inaudible).
Cooper stated the committee considered the Diking District recommended line, but
didn't make a formal recommendation on the black line. There is no recommendation on
this reach now.
Another complicated area is the clay bank area. They decided to go through a more
detailed analysis of that area, which they are still working on. This is one of five
alternatives presented to the committee last week. Given the complications, consider the
range of alternatives. The committee will work on it more.
Cooper stated the committee's progress hasn't slowed. They are working on this
difficult area. Any feedback on policy and philosophy would be welcome.
Roll stated they have created an additional subzone in Lake Samish. It included an
assessment to pay for those activities the subzone want to do. They will soon do an
identical exercise in the Birch Bay area for stormwater. The Board of Supervisors should
Surface Water Work Session, 10/ 17/ 2006, Page 5
think about how those two mesh. Consider the countywide roll versus the local district roll
in doing the work. They don't have all the money in the world to do flood control zone work
everywhere.
Art Anderson, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee and Deming Diking
District member, introduced Harry Williams. The Deming Diking district protects the north
side. Residents invested their own money in the 1950's to protect the north area. They've
always had to protect the north bank. That's where the river wants to go.
Harry Williams, Deming Diking District President, stated he was one of the original
commissioners of the district. The vision of then - executive Shirley Van Zanten and the
County Road Engineer was to have a mechanism so there are ample funds to protect flood
control measures along the river. An individual who lived right next to the river was
financially responsible for any cost share. The vision was to create a fund, fee, or tax to
collect revenue so a person has help paying for projects. The district's first project was
right after the 1990 flood. He indicated the location of the work on an aerial photo in the
presentation. The mission was to lessen the impact of flooding along the reach, to include
maintenance and repair, new construction, and gravel removal. They do repairs as
necessary. A lot of thought and engineering went into the work.
McShane asked when the river moved away from the clay bank. Williams stated it
started about 15 years ago.
McShane asked when the bottom (inaudible) was built. Williams stated it was built
in 1991.
McShane stated that was shortly after the flood fee came forward. Cooper stated
that was a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) project of about $1 million.
McShane asked if other work has been done on it since 1991. Williams stated the
last work done on it was in 1995. The County and Diking District participated in funding the
repair, at a total cost of about $700,000.
Cooper stated $300,000 was just mitigation to reduce the velocity and provide some
things for accumulation.
McShane stated the river moved away from it in 2002. The river is not against it
now. Cooper stated that's correct. It's a back channel now.
Williams stated the line set by the commissioners follows the existing structures. He
indicated the line on the photo. Also, study a limit on the south /west side from existing
structures to protect the upper end, which is starting to unravel. If they adopt the
migration money line, the only thing that will happen is that no money will be available for
protecting existing structures.
Anderson stated the Deming Diking District has built the levee to overtop. A lot of
that flows through old channels and into Smith Creek. They get concerned when they lose
the levee. The river miles from Deming to the bridge at Nugent's Corner is 5.6 miles. The
Nooksack River in that area has a lot of velocity. It drops 67.76 feet in that stretch. From
Nugent's Corner to Everson, the stretch is 7.4 miles, and the river drops 41.44 feet. There
is quite a bit of velocity.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 6
Caskey- Schreiber asked who owns the large property right before the bridge at
Nugent's Corner, on the south side. Cooper stated Enrique Barrau and Janet Maricle own
those properties.
McShane asked if narrowing the river would increase the velocity, if they are worried
about velocity. Williams stated that from Deming, they have given up over 300 acres to the
river by natural river wash. That's why the line is where it is.
Enrique Barrau, citizen, stated there are many old channels. There are 75 acres of
land that were old channels. The entire length of the area is a buffer zone that absorbs the
force of the river. There is a pond on his property that is exactly the level of the river. As
the river level goes up, the farming area gets flooded from the rising water table. They are
not taking that into consideration of the river migration. About 160 acres of his land is
going to go down the river, and will bring a tremendous amount of sediment down the river.
Also, the pipeline goes through that area.
Weimer asked what the yellow /green line is on the map. Cooper stated the Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee came up with those green lines in 1999.
Anderson stated those lines were temporary. They were preliminary.
Weimer asked if they wouldn't do any more work within the green lines. He asked if
it is the pipeline company's responsibility to do work on its pipeline. Cooper stated that in
other locations, the companies look at the cost of repair and have buried the line deeper to
give the river some room. The line is a vision for the future. If they had it to do all over
again, think about how to do it the next time. One of the main reasons to do this is to have
a vision so they can use repair money on long -term projects that would lead to reduced
maintenance costs in the future.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the financial analysis highlights areas where they've put lots
of money and still have to work on. She asked if there will be a buyout. Cooper stated they
would try to work with the property owners to determine the options, such as easements
instead of buyout. The lines are not set in stone. If they learn more, they can change the
lines.
Roll stated also trying to give the Council technical information, knowing that the
property is valuable and that citizens have concerns. The Board of Supervisors' need to
consider both those needs. The technical information doesn't decide the lines, but it just
informs the Board of Supervisors when making the decision on the lines.
Brenner stated that when they first decided to do this, it was to do flood protection.
That's what the public supported. The flood tax should be called a watershed management
tax, not to be confused with a real flood fee. She wants to see how much money the
County has spent directly on projects since it was enacted. Take the history into
consideration. Don't just consider the money line.
Weimer asked the legal obligations the County has if it has paid for protection of
private property. Roll stated the answer is site specific, depending on what's happened.
Cooper stated the flood work agreements have said the local sponsor will maintain
the structure.
Weimer stated they need to have that discussion.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 7
1
2 McShane stated that every property owner pays into this fee. He needs to be able to
3 justify the expenditures that everyone pays into. When spending large amounts of money,
4 ask how it benefits the entire community. Ask how fair it is to divert a large amount of
5 money from one part of the community to another part of the community. If that can't be
6 defended, he is very uncomfortable putting out that kind of money. His little neighborhood
7 generates more money for the flood fee than the run from Deming to Nugent's Corner.
8
9 Anderson stated the flood fee has generated $40 million or more, since 1991. As a
10 property owner, member of the Flood Advisory Committee, and Diking District, he knows
11 they should be concerned when they hear that they are running out of money. In 1990, the
12 impact was countywide after that flood. People couldn't get to work in the refinery areas.
13 Intalco was shut down. There was a huge impact in Canada. Highway 1 was closed.
14 Sumas was closed. The Board of Supervisors should be concerned. They will have another
15 flood. The taxpayers voted to tax themselves for flood repair and flood maintenance. The
16 water resource inventory area (WRIA) fund was supposed to pay back the flood fund, but it
17 hasn't. The taxpayers in his area aren't aware of where the money is going. They figure
18 there is plenty of money in reserve to do projects.
19
20 Janet Maricle, citizen, stated that if there is a flood and it takes her whole farm, it
21 will affect the rest of her life. A flood that took out the bridge at Nugent's Corner affected
22 everyone in the school district.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
25
26 Williams stated the assessment originally was intended to be countywide for flood
27 protection along the river. The original mission and guidance from Shirley Van Zanten and
28 others was to vote for the tax. However, they are not getting the bang for the buck. If
29 they have spent $10 million or $20 million, they wouldn't be discussing lines. They would
30 be fine.
31
32 Barrau stated his farm has been there over 100 years. The 70 acres of trees has
33 been the buffer zone. The buffering capacity is to hold the water. He protects his land and
34 maintains it for wildlife instead of developing it. Now he's being penalized.
35
36 McShane asked how establishing the yellow line is threatening Mr. Barrau's farm.
37 Barrau stated the farm is threatened by decisions being made on controlling the river.
38 When they put in dikes, it channels the water. They are channeling the water on the
39 northern side of the river, which affects what the river does.
40
41 Caskey-Schreiber asked if Mr. Barrau is advocating for the line to curve around his
42 property. Barrau stated leave the river the way is has been, and respect the people who
43 have lived their all their lives.
44
45 Crawford stated the community has made a decision to collect a certain amount of
46 money. It's a countywide decision. The Council could re- address that decision
47 philosophically if it wants. Then it becomes a matter for the County to prioritize the
48 projects. In every flood project, there are people who benefit more than other people.
49 That's why they have the Flood Advisory Board. He relies on and respects the Board.
50
51 Brenner stated it doesn't affect her personally, either, but they've done that with
52 other things. There are incredible farms out there. They did a project in the
53 Ferndale /Custer area to protect farmland.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 8
Anderson indicated the location of where he lives. The people who homesteaded
there did so in areas that never flood. The Deming Diking District has a recommendation to
shave off some of the gravel bar point, if it's agreeable with the Sandy's, and have a
setback from the edge of the river. Across the river, use best practices to come up with an
engineered long jams. He indicated locations that need maintenance work.
Crawford asked if the district can work on the south side of the river since it is not in
their district. Anderson stated they will use best practices to not shove any problems to the
south side of the river. Do some work on the south side a bit further downstream.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they need to talk about the broader policy. She asked the
goal for today, and if they would get more information about the pipeline. She asked if, at
some point, the Board of Supervisors will draw the lines and prioritize projects or will
identify easement locations for overflow. Cooper stated provide the broader policy feedback
to the Flood Advisory Committee.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if the Board of Supervisor's has ever developed a list of
criteria for the Advisory Committee to use when evaluating projects, to remove the political
part of the decisions. Cooper stated they tried to do that a year ago, but it is difficult to do
that for every spot on the river. They are using public money. Think about what should be
the benefit. The project review subcommittee has worked on criteria to get at that broader
public benefit.
McShane stated he understands why it's important to do flood control projects. They
have countywide significance. The question is when they are doing flood control projects
that have broad benefit to the community. The committee made a recommendation to keep
the river from eating into the Sumas drainage and flooding Sumas. Avulsion areas drive
protection efforts. They don't want the river in places it's never been before. Those are
critical things that need to be protected. In every reach of the river, they can make that
same argument. Think about that when setting policy. They shift revenue into individual
districts. Eighty -five percent of the repairs are paid by the County flood district. That eats
up the money. Forty million dollars has been created and burned through. They've burned
a lot of money on flood projects that he questions whether or not had broad public benefit.
It's hard to deny. He's not comfortable spending $250,000 to protect one individual
property. Much land has been lost from the river and from activities that have occurred on
the river that have caused other people to lose their land. One person lost a house because
of flood control activities. He is not comfortable providing money to sites that don't meet
that broad category. When drawing the lines, keep in mind that there must be broad public
benefit beyond just helping out a few people. It is a gift of money. They've made mistakes
in the past.
Crawford stated Ms. Maricle expressed concerns on Saturday that the very south end
of her revetment is starting to eat back. She said that some action could be taken soon,
before the coming flood season. He asked if there is anything that can be done now, or if it
should be taken off the table. Cooper stated the County can't do a permanent repair. To
make that point stable, they need something upstream that is stable. This land is at risk, as
is the pipeline. The public benefit there is in terms of making that clay bank stop growing,
which would continue the problem downstream. There may be a project that could buy
some time to develop long -term projects. They can't stabilize that clay bank now. They
don't have the money, can't get permits, and it is difficult to come up with a safe design.
Roll stated it would be a multiyear permitting nightmare.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 9
Maricle stated that over the past ten years when she's come into the office and
asked what she can do, she's been told she can do nothing. Councilmember McShane is
saying that the County shouldn't pay for private land, but the County is not allowing the
private landowner to spend their own money. Cooper stated there is a permitting process
for property owners. The County engineer has talked with numerous property owners along
the river to help people get through that process. In a case like this, they will need permits
from the County, State, and Army Corps of Engineers.
Barrau stated he told the County in 2000 that he is losing land from the dike built on
the northern side. He lost 15 acres. He was told the County couldn't do anything, He
doesn't want the taxpayer money, but he wants the ability to do something himself. He
isn't allowed to. He will lose 70 acres of trees.
McShane asked if Mr. Barrau has contacted anyone at the State or the County
Planning Department. Barrau stated he has not.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they must set policy on where to do work and set
boundaries. They can't fix this easily. They would all like to help the property owners, but
that's not what they're here for today. Cooper stated it's been a struggle for the committee
and staff to work on this without broad policy decisions.
Brenner stated she wants to see how much of the local flood tax has gone into
projects.
Chris Hatch, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Member, stated the
special districts and countywide district cooperate and share costs. The countywide district
becomes a huge benefactor of a lot of the local work by the special districts. A concern is
that they may be separating the role of the special district with that of the role of the
countywide district. Continue to work cooperatively, and make informed decisions at the
countywide level. Work with the special districts to do that effectively.
Weimer asked if there is an easy way to address the revetment that's failing on the
Maricle property. Cooper stated the clay bank is spreading downstream and causing the
land behind the revetment to fail. The two issues are hard to separate.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane about setting priorities and
knowing where the money is going. Protecting the infrastructure is the high priority. When
dealing with risk management, they must draw the line between public and private
property. He's not always sure there is a difference. Pay for the public infrastructure first,
but don't rule out protecting private land just because it's private and if they can.
Anderson stated he believes in preventative maintenance. Look at continuous
maintenance. The County hasn't been able to maintain things. Don't wait until it all washes
out. Maintenance isn't expensive if they're allowed to do it. It costs much less than major
construction.
McShane asked how much money the diking district has spent on maintenance for
structures since 1990. Williams stated the district has spent all the money it's generated.
They have a $60,000 buffer now.
McShane asked how much money the Everson district has spent on levee
maintenance, without the County match.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 10
Ron Bronsema, citizen, stated the only money they've spent is with the Corps
projects on the river. They have not done any County district projects. The district spent
the federal money 100 percent, without County match.
McShane asked if the Corps provides a match. Cooper stated the Corps pays for 80
percent of the failure. The County will usually cost -share the remaining 20 percent, in the
80/20 ratio, with the local district. The Corps pays 80 percent, the County pays 16 percent,
and the district pays four percent.
McShane asked the number of Corps levees in the Deming district. Anderson
indicated the levees on the aerial photo.
Williams stated the committee came up with the line recommendation because of the
location of the Corps levees.
Bronsema stated the Lynden /Everson Subzone has about 15 river miles. The
district's annual budget is $25,000 to $26,000 per year.
Williams stated it costs about $250 per linear foot for repairs. They would gladly
spend every dime and borrow more, if the County can facilitate permits.
McShane asked for a breakdown of where the money is going by diking district and
outside the districts. It may shed light on the broad perspective of where this money is
going and of the pressure brought to this body regarding expenditures. This group is
already worrying about a specific levee in a specific spot because the people are in the
room, rather than talking about where the lines should go.
Brenner stated don't pit the districts against each other. They're all important. The
money targeted for them initially is going to other things.
Bronsema stated the County has done some projects that it's left in the river. He
indicated the location on a map. The advisory committee had talked about how expensive it
is. They talked about not having any line in 1999, because it may be beyond the County to
do anything. If anything is to be done, it should be done by the State Department if Fish
and Wildlife, the Tribes, and the federal government. The County flood fund would be
drained by any projects there. Historically, within the last 30 to 50 years, there was
another clay bank slider farther upstream. The river may change its channel some day.
There are multiple areas that may have a clay bank failure. It's an overwhelming project.
Williams stated the original reason for the subzones was because private property
owners had to pay their share to get work done on the river before the countywide flood
tax. Public money couldn't be spent on private property. Therefore, they created special
zones to be the participating financial match in any repair projects in their zone.
Cooper stated another reason was to enable some projects that don't have complete
participation from all property owners. When using the countywide fund, they are using the
broad public money. That's why the County still looks for a broad public benefit in the
projects. The committee has tried to bring public benefit into it. Do the things first that
have the biggest public benefit. That doesn't mean they can't do something with a
narrower public benefit.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 11
Williams stated he would like to see that the line issue be tabled because one size
doesn't fit all. They are hung up on this reach. Take the line along the river, protect it, and
come back to it as needed.
Caskey - Schreiber stated that if one area is using many funds for protection, the
question is how much to throw at it versus creating a meander area.
Williams stated it is a high velocity area that will take a lot of maintenance. If they
can maintain the area, the cost should go down. Drawing a line will shut off the funding
mechanism. Instead, follow the line that's there and make a case -by -case decision.
Anderson stated that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has added another element.
Of the 2005 Corps projects, five percent went to mitigation. County projects in the Everson
area spend about 40 percent on mitigation. They have to figure that in, too. The rules have
changed. They end up spending more than the Corps. If five percent of mitigation is good
for the Corps, then why not the County.
Cooper stated the Corps doesn't have to get a Corps permit. In some cases, they've
finished their ESA consultation after the project was done. The County does not get the
same deal.
Anderson stated those factors should be included in Councilmember Brenner's list.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Roll stated that people are asking why they are spending so much, in terms of the
ESA issue. The reason is because they haven't defined mitigation versus recovery. The
next step is defining the funding sources. The definition of mitigation versus recovery has
become muddy. They need to be clear about those functional things that will lead to
recovery, and who should be financing and implementing those things.
McShane stated that for any project, they should think about what they're
addressing. The Flood Advisory Committee has used these tools to draw lines and make a
strong recommendation from Nugent's Corner to Everson. Everyone agreed, based on the
three types of flood hazards. He asked if they could agree that they should draw the
expenditure lines based on those three hazards. If people want to spend money on other
projects, they can, but they shouldn't expect the County to pay for it. It's the same with
the districts. Think about trying to maintain the historical meander amplitude. Where they
try to tighten the river is where they end up spending the most money. That's why bridges
are such a problem. If there is width, it doesn't cost the County much money. The Flood
Advisory Committee should consider that. They know the locations of the infrastructure
that is threatened by lateral erosion and evulsion. That is his advice to the Flood Advisory
Committee.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she agrees. A question is how much money they spend on
lateral erosion control when they don't address the bigger flood issues. The hazards with
flooding are very widespread. They need to focus on the criteria and goals, then map the
locations. Create some green infrastructure to have public ownership of overflow areas so
the private owners aren't penalized for trying to address the big issues that affect everyone.
Bronsema stated that one omission on the list of three is the clay bank landslide.
Cooper stated landslide on the clay bank exacerbates the evulsion risk.
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 12
1 Pittman stated the condition existing today is an elevated risk. The channel is half
2 blocked. If there were a big flood tomorrow, there may be a big event. An event that
3 crosses Highway 9 has abroad implications.
4
5 Anderson stated he disagrees with Councilmember McShane. They can't put the
6 river in a box. Decisions have to be made reach -by- reach.
7
8 Cooper stated the staff and committee could come up with alternatives and look at
9 the pros and cons of each alternative. It sounds like a history and qualitative assessment
10 would be helpful. She asked about trying to maximize the corridor.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's most prudent to be as flexible as possible.
13
14 Brenner stated the County needs to create a stormwater fund. Other things have
15 eaten into the flood tax. The projects she's seen are valuable if the money was there. If
16 the money isn't there, it may because it was moved. She doesn't know whether or not the
17 County had enough money for the projects. If the County did, it needs to take the money
18 from somewhere else and put it back where it was intended.
19
20 McShane stated he's pessimistic that they are going to come up with a broad
21 philosophy. It's too easy for people to ignore the fact that the river is too confined.
22 Overall, the flood district has spent too much money on poorly conceived projects at
23 Deming.
24
25 Weimer stated he liked the amplitude model. Be clear on the effects to places where
26 they are going to take away land.
27
28 Cooper stated she would come up with alternative lines.
29
30 Caskey - Schreiber stated come up with a cost comparison of an acquisition of
31 easements versus engineered fixes. Cooper stated they may need both in some places.
32 She will include those alternatives. Sometimes land acquisition with an engineered setback
33 structure can lead to a long -term, minimal maintenance cost.
34
35 Crawford asked if they could do something to protect the farmland this year, such as
36 spend $10,000 to dump ten truckloads of big rock at the toe. Cooper stated the Council can
37 authorize it. She doesn't know if she can get it permitted.
38
39 Crawford stated permitting is silly relative to the size of the slide that goes the next
40 quarter -mile. Roll stated they need to have more clearly defined alternatives. He doesn't
41 want to recommend that the County spend $10,000 if it obligates the County to spend $10
42 million.
43
44 Cooper stated she is meeting with the pipeline company because it has infrastructure
45 at risk.
46
47 Brenner stated keep in mind the kind of land when developing the alternatives.
48 Cooper stated she would provide more information on the alternatives.
49
50 Anderson thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak.
51
52 2. WATER RESOURCE PR03ECT
53
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 13
1 Water Resource Comprehensive Planning and Integration
2
3 This item was withdrawn from the agenda because Councilmember Nelson is not
4 present. It will be discussed on the next regular Council meeting day.
5
6
7 ADJOURN
8
9 The meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m.
10
11
12 �--
13 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcri Lion
14
15 The Council approved these minutes on January 30, 2007.
17 ATTEST4� %% ,.,(��,C'O+(f,,���i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
18 ��� �l� • • •AT• '•,r���'�. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
19
21 _ CD r 5
22 * G
23 DaV Brew s ;► it (irk Laurie Caskey- Schreib r, Council Chair
•• .SHING ••
0�.1
r,����rlf. 11111111��r�
Surface Water Work Session, 10/17/2006, Page 14