The rules that allow people to build in the flood plain in Snohomish County soon may be changed.
“I really think we need to be moving people off the flood plain and keep them out,” Snohomish County Councilman Dave Somers said. “Going back and rebuilding time and again is just silly.”
The Election Day floods caused nearly $9 million in damage to homes and personal property countywide, records show.
Gov. Chris Gregoire has asked President Bush to declare a federal disaster, freeing up money to help flood victims pay for repairs.
Still, the flood-related damage has done little to change a long-standing county policy that allows growth in flood-prone areas. A week after the Election Day flood, county officials issued permits for a new home in one of the county’s hardest-hit neighborhoods, an investigation by The Herald found.
The county can’t stop people from using their land, said Craig Ladiser, the county’s director of planning and development services. Instead, officials try to enforce rules that require homeowners to build super-sized foundations to keep living areas above floodwaters, Ladiser said.
It is an approach that has received praise from state and federal flood management officials. But in the latest flood, even people who own homes built on the high foundations suffered tens of thousands of dollars in damage to yards, septic tanks and decks. Dozens also required rescue by helicopter, hovercraft and boat.
As a result, a change in policy could be on the way. The County Council is expected to address development and other flood-related matters during scheduled January hearings.
Local lawmakers disagree about how to prevent future damage. Some suggested halting development in flood-prone areas. Others argue that dredging rivers would prevent future floods from rising over the banks and turning county roads into floodways.
If an area is hazardous, building permits shouldn’t be issued, said Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish.
Although the state constitution protects property owners’ land-use rights, those rights aren’t unlimited, Dunshee said. It’s easier for government to issue building permits for questionable projects than fight property owners in court, he said.
“If we could legislate local government not being stupid, we would do that,” Dunshee said.
It would be difficult to institute a building permit moratorium, said Somers, a Democrat.
“We need to take a slower approach,” he said.
Republican County Councilman John Koster, a former dairy farmer from Arlington, said a certain amount of risk comes with living near a river.
He favors protecting property – and property rights – not by restricting building, but by attempting to tame rivers with dredging.
When rivers flood, they bring silt and rocks downstream. If that debris were removed, Koster said, the damage outside the banks might be lessened.
But Koster conceded there is little chance of dredging rivers. Environmental regulations are in place to protect fish, including threatened salmon runs.
“It’s almost impossible to get through the maze of permits to do any bar scalping or remove any aggregate,” Koster said.
Dunshee favors restrictions on new construction in flood plains, including language in permits that would let people know their decision to live there may come at a price.
If the permit prevented people from applying for federal or state loans to rebuild, “maybe that would wake people up,” he said.
Somers said he wants to tighten building restrictions.
“We’re way too lax on that,” he said. “I think we need to stop that. It’s just a matter of time in all these places that something bad is going to happen.
“It’s kind of stupid to build in a flood plain when you know it’s just a matter of time.”
Herald writer Jeff Switzer contributed to this report.
Reporter Jackson Holtz: 425-339-3437 or jholtz@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
