Chehalis Flood Plan Concerns

February 23, 1999

Kevin O'Sullivan Commissioner Thurston County 2000 Lakeridge Drive Olympia, WA 98502

Mr. Richard Graham Commissioner Lewis County 360 NW North St. CMS-01 Chehalis, WA. 98532-1900 Commissioner Graham response

Forest Brooks Project Manager -- USACE 4735 E. Marginal Way Seattle, WA 98101 USACE response

Bob Beerbower Commissioner Grays Harbor County Grays Harbor Courthouse Montesano, WA. 98563

Gentlemen:

I am a long time resident of eastern Grays Harbor County. My neighbors and I suffered immense damage in the 1996 flood and lesser damage in the 1990 flood. I eagerly attended the flood hazard meeting February 16 in Montesano. Now, after a lot of thinking and due deliberation I feel obligated to share my concerns about this project with you.

1. Thurston County, Washington Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers were conspicuous by their absence at this meeting. As a taxpayer and resident I have to wonder why they thought our Grays Harbor concerns and issues were not important to the development of the flood hazard plan. One would have to guess that we rural residents simply don't represent enough political power and that a solution which benefits Centralia/Chehalis (CenChe) can be forced down our throats.

2. After the meeting Mr. Hosey and I had a spirited discussion, and he convinced me that the only rainfall or streamflows which were part of the Pacific International Engineering (PIE) computer model - were those which entered the Chehalis upstream of the western study area boundary. The PIE computer model totally ignores the waters carried by Scatter Creek and the Black River.

This omission concerns me. The confluence of the Black and Chehalis rivers presents a much smaller floodway and floodplain then the upstream CenChe floodway/floodplain. Moving CenChe flood water, faster and sooner, from CenChe will only aggravate our existing problems. We don't need the same amount of water sooner, nor do we need it arriving at a faster flow.

I am further concerned that the PIE computer model ignores our local situation. As of the day of the meeting the official gage at Grand Mound and my gage on the Black River had already recorded 6 flood episodes - but the CenChe area had seen only 3 episodes. That means we have a water situation downstream that is independent of the CenChe area.

Scatter Creek is part of the Middle Chehalis Basin. The Middle Chehalis Basin covers 259 square miles. The Middle Chehalis Basin extends to Porter and between Grand Mound and Porter there are 10 major tributaries (excluding the Black River) which feed into the Chehalis. The Black River is a watershed by itself. The Black River watershed covers 144 square miles. 23% of the land in this watershed is already subject to flooding. The Black River is about 25 miles long and is fed by 84 miles of tributaries.

At a minimum the Black River and Scatter Creek must be part of any proposed solution.

3. Part of the proposed solution includes diversion of the water onto CenChe area agriculture lands. This diversion, while helpful, appears be a taking of private property for public benefit. This begs the question, rather than divert the flood water, why not move the businesses and residents who built in the flood plain, out of the floodplain?

4. The 1996 flood was of epic proportions. It exceeded any event in recorded history. Now, several years later we are still waiting to learn where the new 100-year floodplain boundaries are. This PIE computer model and plan are based on old data - and it seems risky at best, to make decisions governing flood plains, when we don't have new official flood plain boundaries identified.

5. We were told the proposed plan will not work unless the Skookumchuck Dam is converted to flood storage. As Mr. Hosey described, the water behind the dam would have to lowered each fall to provide storage during flood events. That process seems to invite a measure of witchcraft or fortune-telling skill - how much water do you let out and/or when do you have to let water out? What happens if the operators guess wrong? Who will be liable for downstream damages that will occur when peak flows have to be released or when the capacity of the proposed modification is exceeded? Is this something Lewis County, Thurston County and Grays Harbor county commissioners want to assume liability for?

6. Since the plan depends upon diverting water, modifying the floodplain, and manmade alterations to what is now the normal flow of the Skookumchuck - has anyone considered the impact to aquifer recharge? Our entire watershed depends upon the floodwaters of the Chehalis. Without adequte recharge we will face a significant alteration to our summer and fall groundwater supply.

7. In response to a direct question I was told that the Interstate 5 improvements and the U.S. Highway 12 Route Development Plans (including a 4 lane highway in the floodplain) modifications were not a part of the proposed plan. As a taxpayer and resident I am amazed at the audacity of the agencies who have created a plan that ignores some very well known and publicized construction projects. Since both construction projects deal with right of way which is in the flood plain, it would seem obvious that their future impact has to be part of the PIE computer model. Leaving the highway modifications out of the plan is no different than building an airport to accommodate DC-3's. One also wonders how federal highway funds can be used for construction projects inside of a known 100 year floodplain.

8. I went to the meeting expecting to see a solution for the Chehalis river flood problems. Instead I saw a solution which benefits only the CenChe area. It is my opinion that the project needs to be renamed. It is not solving problems for rural residents downstream of CenChe. It is not a solution that addresses flooding around Porter, or Elma, or Montesano. It doesn't even address flooding in Grand Mound. I would ask that you consider renaming it to the CenChe Flood Plan or the I-5 Corridor Flood Plan - any name which reflects the true nature of the area served and by so doing announces to the public the true focus of the plan.

In order for any plan, this one or another one in the future, to be successful, there has to be more community involvement. The organization chart we were shown for this plan listed two cities and 3 county governments. To the casual observer it appears that only one county and two cities were involved. A solution which benefits only those three organizations does so at great expense to the other residents of the watershed.

One of the speakers mentioned the great loss the state suffered - trucks were lined up for days waiting to go through the flood area. The claimed economic losses were astronomical. But not once did anyone mention that the truckers were warm and dry - they had food and shelter and the trucks did get through. Does it matter if a truck full of Nike sneakers is late getting to Seattle when local residents were homeless, when local residents had no heat for weeks - when local residents had years of work destroyed? Those same truckers were able to deliver their goods to Microsoft or Boeing and go home to dry beds, a safe family, and an undamaged home. Nordstroms or JC Penney might have had reduced inventory for a few days, but they continued to stay in business. The state really didn't lose any money on retail sales. After the flood local residents were buying food, clothing, repairs, furniture and more at a rate that was never anticipated. The state of Washington didn't repeal sales taxes for flood victims. The state collected millions of dollars in sales tax and benefitted significantly from the disaster.

The real loss that no one talks about happened to the old couple down the road who had to move out, the farmer across the highway who lost a year of hay and feed, or the family which lost all their cars, furniture and saw their home destroyed. These are the people that are looking to you to provide a solution that will safeguard them in the future. These are the people who wonder and wonder why developers continue to get permits to fill and build in the floodplain. Your plans need to address their safety, their well-being and their protection from future natural and man-made flood events.

We need a flood solution that works for each of us, not just a select few.

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council