From ‘Repetitive Loss’ to ‘Room for the River’: Tracing the Transformation of Flood Governance in Western WA

​

FbD Lunch & Learn Series

​

​

April 4, 2024

Today’s Speakers:

​

• Jonathon Loos is the Flood Policy Lead at the Washington Department of Ecology. Jonathon works closely with statewide and regional staff to support the Floodplains By Design program and to advance integrated floodplain management efforts across Ecology and in partnership with other agencies. Jonathon has broad expertise in watershed science and policy. Jonathon completed a Ph.D. at Dartmouth College where he studied the evolution of watershed governance systems in the U.S. in response to floods and droughts. Prior to that he worked with American Rivers to advance floodplain restoration science and practice in Washington state and nationally.

​

• Olivia Zimmerman is a Coastal Resilience Project Coordinator at WA Dept. of Ecology.

Olivia supports development and implementation of habitat conservation, restoration, and coastal resilience projects alongside coastal communities, while centering Tribal and climate justice. She completed her master’s at UW’s School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, and has a B.A. from WWU in psychology and environmental studies.

​

Agenda:

​

• 12:00 - 12:05 - Welcome and Introductions

​

• 12:05 - 12:35 - Jonathon Loos presentation

​

• 12:35-12:50 - Olivia Zimmerman presentation

​

• 12:50 - 1:00 - Discussion and Closure

​

• 1:00 - 1:30 - Time held for ongoing, impromptu discussion if desired

FbD and the transformation of floodplain management in Washington

​

• FbD is a grant program + a network/community of practice transforming floodplain management in WA

​

• Transforming systems is difficult work!

​

• This study aims to understand how system transformation unfolds within flood governance, and why FbD approach is so unique.

​

Understanding how system change unfolds

​

• Floodplain management is enacted through the U.S. flood governance system

​

• U.S. flood governance system is composed of various societal elements that work in concert to shape management

​

• System dynamics emerge, becoming self-reinforcing, and resistant to change (by design)!

​

Why study the evolution of flood governance in Washington?

• Washington’s approach is unique!
• Multiple benefit projects driven by collaborative local programs + Tribes, utilizing acquisitions, infrastructure setbacks/removals, restoration

​

• Historical institutional analysis: Understanding how things came together reveals how they come apart
• To guide continued and lasting system change to advance resilience of communities and ecosystems

​

• Scale up outcomes and inform efforts elsewhere

Research framework

• Characterize the evolution of flood governance in Washington from land colonization until present.
• Variable of focus = “flood management paradigm”

​

• Flood management paradigm = dominant rationale that underpins individual and collective decisions for managing riverine flood hazards.

​

• Historical analysis of river and floodplain management to identify drivers and mechanisms of stability and change.

​

• Trace how, and why, flood management has shifted over time between “room for the river” and “flood control” paradigms.

Results

Period 1: 1860-1906, Land colonization, tribal dispossession, forest industry expansion

• Donation Land Claim Act drove settler colonialism
• 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek
• Resource economy expansion
• Rivers used to transport people and timber to ports
• 1906 flood event earliest of record, rerouted White and Cedar Rivers

Paradigm: Floods are unpredictable acts of God.

Medicine Creek Treaty site in 1914

1906 floods in south King County

Period 2: 1907-1937, Early flood disasters lead to river “training” and increased govt authority

• 1907 County Flood Control Act allowed tax levy to pay for projects (RCW 86.12)
• Development and river training practices begin to alter rivers at significant scales
• Portland USACE - “remaking rivers and harbors to the benefit of economic growth”
• 1937 State flood control districts (RCW 86.09)

Paradigm: Floods are unpredictable acts of God and rivers must be trained to contain floodwaters.

1921, wood material from White River

1921, engineers inspect diversion dam on White River

Period 3: 1938-1968, Flood control construction boom and floodplain development

• 1930s flood disasters statewide and nationally
• Federal govt takes responsibility for protecting the public from floods.
• USACE charged with building flood control projects, e.g. Mud Mountain Dam
• 1948 USACE state that salmon fisheries “obviously cannot prevent development of other uses [of rivers] essential to the growing economy of the region”
• 1961 State Flood Control Zone District Act (RCW 86.15)
• Engineered river networks, “waterways”, peak by 1970s and transform floodplains into developable space

Paradigm: Floods oppose the productive use of land and must be controlled via engineering.

Period 4: 1969-1996, Advent of floodplain management and “flood maps”

• Flood disasters and costs untenable
• Federal govt. reassigns flood safety responsibility to local level
• 1968 NFIP established to provide financial security and communicate risk
• Floodplain management integrates land planning with quantifiable flood risk
• Seattle USACE - “Progress cannot be stopped, but it can be guided wisely”
• 1975 Boldt Decision returns Tribal sovereignty as fishery co-managers, NWIFC created
• 1980-1990s repetitive flood disasters
• 1989 State sets floodplain regulations above NFIP maximum (RCW 86.16)

Paradigm: We can keep using floodplains if local governments properly manage and communicate risk.

1974, Indigenous UW students protest fishing rights

Period 5: 1997-2010, Watershed scale management and dynamic perspectives of rivers

• 1990-2000s Flood disasters continue statewide
• State creates FCAAP (RCW 86.26)
• 1993 First record of floodplain buyouts, suggestion of levee setback
• 2003 Fluvial sciences inform watershed management, WRIAs + CMZ
• 1998 ESA listing signals slow moving disaster in Puget Sound fisheries
• Tipping point reached?

Paradigm: Turns out rivers and flood risk are dynamic and perhaps we need to adjust some things…

Period 6: 2011-Present, Convergence of flood and ecosystem management systems

• 2011 BiOp triggers convergence of flood and ecosystem management arenas
• De-siloing of flood, fish, farm, Tribal management in some communities
• Collaborative, grassroots efforts give rise to “room for river” concepts
• Early multibenefit projects, first levee setback
• 2013 FbD formally adopted by State agency management, administered in partnership with communities

Paradigm: Where possible, returning space to rivers to safely convey floodwaters can restore ecosystems and support working lands.

Sources: PSP, Spatial Hazards Events and Losses Database for the US (SHELUS), County management archives

Key takeaways:

• U.S. flood governance system was assembled over the past century in a piecewise manner, has become “locked-in”.

​

• Washington has a long history of flood loss, and increasing County and State role in flood management.

​

• Flood management paradigm has centered around structural flood control, floodplain management.

​

• Convergence of flood and ecosystem management systems set the stage for paradigm change in Washington.

​

• Bottom-up efforts of local jurisdictions, NGOs, Tribes set in motion multibenefit paradigm, institutionalized within FbD

​

• Integration of Indigenous knowledge systems with western land management is critical to recent paradigm shift.

Q: How are Indigenous perspectives reflected, or overlooked, in this history and Washington’s floodplain management community today?

Olivia’s slides start here

Olivia Zimmerman, Tanya Eison-Pelach, Bob Carey, Phil Levin

Capstone Research

• TNC - Conduct an environmental justice assessment for FbD

​

• Speak to people about lived experiences

​

• Rooted in Indigenous land management perspectives

Photo Source: U.S. Department of the Interior - BLM

• Time constraints in research
• Ethical research practices

​

​

Photo Source: U.S. Department of the Interior - BLM

Participants - Tribal Natural Resource Managers

Research Questions

1) What are the needs of and inequities experienced by Tribes in terms of floodplain health

and management according to Tribal natural resource managers?

​

2) Are these needs and inequities being addressed by Floodplains by Design?

​

​

3) How can Floodplains by Design better address these needs and inequities moving forward?

• When you think about climate change, what worries you?
• What would it mean for your community to be resilient in the face of climate change?
• When you think about flooding, what’s at risk to the community you work with?
• Is there anything else you would like to share with us?

​

Tieton River - Credit: Cameron Karsten

Reaching Saturation

# Codes

Participants

Participants (n=20)

• Age Range: 32-75
• 75% male; 25% female
• Employment Duration: 2.5 years - 40+
• Average: 17.5 years
• 70% West of Cascades; 30% East
• 40% Salish Sea; 30% Coast
• Range of positions
• Director of natural resources
• Fisheries biologist
• Restoration planner

Region

Research Questions

1) What are the needs of and inequities experienced by Tribes in terms of floodplain health

and management according to Tribal natural resource managers?

​

2) Are these needs and inequities being addressed by Floodplains by Design?

​

​

3) How can Floodplains by Design better address these needs and inequities moving forward?

Tribal Needs

% of Participants

0%

100%

Relative # Mentions

214

97

84

“We’ve lost 90% of the run, or 95%, that our people used to depend upon… Who we are as [a] people is connected to what the land and the fish do and say.”

​

​

“If we lose salmon, that’s like cutting your legs off for Tribes.”

​

​

​

LIDAR of Quinault River - Credit: WA DNR

Tribal Inequities

% of Participants

0%

100%

Relative # Mentions

105

98

69

​

​

“I want to highlight the fact that people look at the impacts on who is in the floodplain and who uses the floodplain. They don’t think about how [infrastructure is] destroying aquatic species by degrading the floodplains. [This relates to] environmental justice for Indigenous Peoples who rely on that resource. People who aren’t walking in those shoes don’t see what I call the ‘collateral damage.’”

​

​

​

​

LIDAR of Quinault River - Credit: WA DNR

Research Questions

1) What are the needs of and inequities experienced by Tribes in terms of floodplain health

and management according to Tribal natural resource managers?

​

2) Are these needs and inequities being addressed by Floodplains by Design?

​

​

3) How can Floodplains by Design better address these needs and inequities moving forward?

Needs being met and inequities addressed by FbD?

30%

30%

15%

25%

Needs being met and inequities addressed by FbD?

30%

-Financial Support

-Collaborative Goals

(Institutional)

​

Needs being met and inequities addressed by FbD?

15%

-Not actually multi-benefit

-Proactive not rewarded

-Treaty rights

(Institutional, cultural, and biological)

​

30%

-Financial Support

-Collaborative Goals

(Institutional)

​

​

​

“What we found is that we don’t compete very well for [FbD] grants because those grants are heavily weighted for impacts on humans, or human safety. And for the last [several decades] we’ve been moving people out of the floodplain. So we basically have no one who is at risk, and therefore, don’t compete well, even though we continue to have floodplain restoration needs.”

​

​

​

​

​

LIDAR of Quinault River - Credit: WA DNR

Research Questions

1) What are the needs of and inequities experienced by Tribes in terms of floodplain health

and management according to Tribal natural resource managers?

​

2) Are these needs and inequities being addressed by Floodplains by Design?

​

​

3) How can Floodplains by Design better address these needs and inequities moving forward?

Recommendations to FbD - Addressing Barriers

• Value salmon in equal measure with moving humans out of floodplain
• Western frameworks separate humans and nature, which can perpetuate inequities. Being aware of this in grant allocation decisions is key.
• Needs and inequities with most consensus emphasized salmon
• Standardize evaluation procedures
• Remove match
• Ensure funding is allocated equitably outside of urban areas to achieve proactive goal
• Continued support of land acquisition
• Enhanced outreach, education, and relationship building with Tribes

Key Takeaways

• Definition of human wellbeing must include non-Western ways of being for environmental and Tribal justice.
• Biological and cultural priorities
• Legacies of colonial land management undermine Tribal treaty rights.
• FbD is on the right track, but areas to improve.

Thank you!

​

Questions?

​

Cedar River - Source: King County WLR

Upcoming Lunch and Learns:

​

• May - RiskMAP (tentative)

​

• June - Acquisition and Buyout #1

​

• July - Acquisition and Buyout #2

​

• August: SUMMER! No Lunch and Learn