City engineer outlines three‑phase plan to restore flood‑diversion channel, urges interagency coordination and grants pursuit
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Public works staff presented a multi‑decade, three‑phase plan to restore and upgrade the city’s flood‑diversion channel to reduce flood risk. Officials described historical Corps plans not fully implemented, a need for maintenance easements, and funding paths including state grants, USBR cooperation and potential congressional assistance.
During public works reports the city’s flood‑diversion channel and sheet‑flow floodplain were described as degraded and underfunctioning. Staff reviewed a 1972 Corps design that was never fully completed and said the channel is now partly filled with 3–4 feet of bedload and trees growing in the levee that weaken it.
“The goal, the end goal, is to get us out of the floodplain,” staff said, describing a three‑phase approach: (1) notify and educate property owners and agencies of maintenance duties, (2) restart maintenance to restore at least the condition left by the Corps in 1974, and (3) pursue an upgrade to the 1972 design to achieve a 5,000 cubic‑feet‑per‑second (CFS) capacity for a 100‑year event. Staff also cited 3,000 CFS as a reference for a 25‑year event in the briefing.
Staff said the historical record shows the community received a smaller option rather than the full 1972 plan and that maintenance easements were not secured on upstream private lands. That has left much of the diversion channel on private property and limited the city’s ability to perform routine cleanout and repairs.
Possible funding sources and partners identified included the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Ecology (which applied for a grant the city received in draft form), bridge and CDS grants, FEMA (post‑disaster funding), and congressional‑directed spending. Staff said Corps and USBR personnel have discussed administrative support for design and maintenance but that substantial construction funding would be required to reach 5,000 CFS capacity.
Staff recommended immediate steps to publicize landowner responsibilities, pursue grants, and begin maintenance so the city is in a better position for larger funding opportunities. No formal council action on policy changes or assessments was recorded in the meeting transcript.
What happens next: Staff will pursue grant opportunities, coordinate with USBR/irrigation district engineers on maintenance and feasibility, and continue outreach to affected property owners. The presentation identified several options but did not record a council vote or formal referral in the transcript.