Story by Cookson Beecher, Capital Press, June 26, 1997
EVERETT, Wash.; Skagit County and the state of Washington are liable for $1.6 million in flood damages that occurred as a result of a diking system designed to protect urban areas, a jury ruled this week.
In a trial closely watched by farmers and rural landowners in Western Washington, the 12-member jury ruled the county is responsible for 61 percent of the damages and the state for 31 percent of the damages that occurred to property in the Nookachamps area during devastating flooding in 1990.
The trial centered around a dike system designed to protect the shopping malls in Burlington, Wash., and the county business center in Mount Vernon, Wash.
The 58 plaintiffs; among them a row crop farmer, several dairy owners and a greenhouse owner; said their land was used as a backup reservoir to provide protection to those urban interests.
The plaintiffs sought a total of $5.7 million in damages; far more than what the jury awarded.
The largest award, almost $190,000, went to Summersun Greenhouse Co., which suffered the loss of thousands of poinsettias at the height of the holiday season. Dairies that lost livestock were compensated for those losses.
Carl Hagens, a Seattle attorney who represented the property owners in the case, said most of them sought reimbursement or payment for raising their homes or businesses.
Leonard Halverson, who farms 350 acres of row crops in the flood-impacted area was the lead plaintiff. For him, the verdict represents an important victory even though he was awarded only $52,000, far less than what he had sought.
"We got the ruling we had to have," he said. "The county's dikes are all illegal, and that gives us the basis to go forward. It means we can refile for damages we suffered during the 1995 flood."
Although the claimants had tried to add those damages to the suit, the judge wouldn't allow it.
Halverson said he'd rather see the problem fixed than continue the legal battle.
"It could end here," he said. "The ball is in the county's court."
As for the the damage awards, which didn't include any compensation for declining property values to farmland, Halverson admitted to disappointment.
Nevertheless, he believes there was a bigger issue involved.
"To me, it wasn't the money," he said. "It was the water."
The effect of the verdict will extend far past Skagit County, he said, primarily because of the pattern of protecting urban areas at the expense of rural areas in Western Washington.
He also pointed to a governmental entity that will find itself examining the way it does business.
"I think where the pressure is really going to come is with the Department of Transportation," he said.
"They've built roads all over the place that have caused water to be backed up. I-5 is just one big dike across the Skagit Valley."
Larry Kunzler, a former farmer and property owner in the Nookachamps Valley, also believes that the jury's decision sends out an important message.
"What this case really teaches us is that the farming community must remain eternally vigilant against grandiose flood control works designed to protect urban areas."
Hagens shares that view. "This will heighten awareness. When you're shifting water around, there should be some compensation for those who are affected."
John Moffat, chief civil deputy for Skagit County, said that the verdict came as a surprise.
"The jury found there was an unlawful taking of property by the county due to the dikes. Frankly, we're disappointed in the verdict. We don't think the county is responsible."
Skagit County Commissioner Ted Anderson, who represents the district where the flooding occurred, called the verdict an "unfortunate landmark decision for the entire nation."
"This will send trauma through every county that needs to fight floods," he said.
The county intends to appeal, and Anderson said he is confident it will win.
The county has 30 days after the written judgment to file an appeal.
The trial, which lasted five months, was the longest civil proceeding in the history of Snohomish County. The trial was held in Snohomish Superior Court because Skagit County was named as one of the defendants in the case.
In an exceedingly complex round of fault-finding, the property owners said Skagit County was to blame for the damages caused by the excess flooding. But the county said it had followed proper procedures and turned around and sued the state, contending it was ultimately responsible.
The state, which was a third party in the case, said the responsibility lay with the dike districts that protect Burlington and Mount Vernon. But no one filed suit against the districts.