# A Quarter-Century of Flood Protection: Paula Harris's Final Chapter ## Meeting Overview On a beautiful July afternoon when flooding seemed like the furthest thing from anyone's mind, the Whatcom County Council's Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee gathered to hear a comprehensive overview of the county's flood mitigation efforts over the past 25 years. Committee Chair Kaylee Galloway called the hybrid meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. on July 8, 2025, with committee members Todd Donovan and Mark Stremler present, along with council members Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, and Jon Scanlon attending. The sole item on the agenda was a special presentation from Paula Harris, the county's veteran flood management expert who arrived in 1998 just as the 1999 Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) was being finalized. What followed was both a technical overview of major infrastructure projects and a personal reflection from someone who has dedicated her career to protecting Whatcom County from the Nooksack River's periodic fury. Harris's presentation carried particular weight as she approaches retirement, marking the end of an era for someone who has shepherded the county through dozens of flood events and managed the implementation of millions of dollars in flood protection projects. Her encyclopedic knowledge of every culvert, levee, and setback project reflected not just professional expertise, but the deep institutional memory that comes from decades of hands-on flood management. ## The Legacy of Bertrand Creek: Setting the Standard Harris began her tour through the county's flood protection infrastructure with Bertrand Creek, a project that exemplified the recurring challenges of managing water in an agricultural setting. "Pretty much every flood event caused damage on Bertrand Creek," she explained, describing how the original levees were positioned tight against the creek, making them vulnerable to erosion and catastrophic failure. The transformation of this system illustrated the evolution in flood management philosophy. Rather than simply repairing damage after each flood, the county worked with the Nooksack Tribe to purchase flood and conservation easements, allowing the levees to be moved back from the creek channel. This approach not only made the infrastructure more resilient but created environmental benefits as well. "The farmers were actually able to get them enrolled in CREP, and we still had a CREP program in this county, so they were able to generate some revenues and be made whole," Harris noted. "And the fish really got a good deal, and those levees perform so much better than they used to." The project demonstrated the power of leveraging disaster recovery funding for long-term improvements. Using $340,000 in Army Corps of Engineers rehabilitation money after the 2004 floods, the county contributed additional funds to implement a more comprehensive solution rather than simply rebuilding what had failed. ## Canyon Creek: From Crisis to Innovation Moving upstream to Canyon Creek, Harris described one of the county's most ambitious and successful flood hazard reduction projects—a $5.6 million undertaking that transformed a dangerous alluvial fan into a model of integrated flood control and habitat restoration. The original situation was sobering. A levee built in 1994 had been damaged in 1995, creating a fish passage barrier and threatening the entire Glacier Springs community. "The thought of what that could do, if and when it would have failed, was a bit scary," Harris reflected, showing photographs of massive toe rock and the potential overflow channel that could have sent flood waters cascading over Mount Baker Highway. The solution was both elegant and complex. Rather than rebuilding the failed infrastructure, the county partnered with the Whatcom Land Trust to acquire vulnerable properties and implement a comprehensive restoration project. The old levee was moved back, and 23 log jams were installed across the alluvial fan to break up flood energy and dissipate the concentrated flow that had previously caused so much damage. "We set it back to where this yellow line is and installed 23 log jams out in that alluvial fan to really try and break up the energy, dissipate that energy, and break up the water so it doesn't focus in one area," Harris explained. The project's success was validated during a Thanksgiving 2012 flood event, when Harris ventured out to observe the system in action. "Right in front of us, there was like standing waves up to our knees. But when we turned around, there was this one little shadow of this log jam, very calm water, where, if I would have been a fish, that would have been a good spot to be." The Canyon Creek project became a flagship for the state's emerging Floodplains By Design program, demonstrating how flood protection could be achieved through natural infrastructure while providing multiple benefits for both communities and ecosystems. ## The Deming Levee: Reconnecting Hydrology The Deming levee improvement project illustrated another common challenge in the county's agricultural areas—poorly constructed berms that created more problems than they solved. The original system included an "unimproved berm" that had cut off a tributary from the main river, creating an artificial wetland that regularly flooded the surrounding community. "During flood events, it actually flooded the community because it didn't have any way to get back to the river," Harris explained. "The river would also overtop this yellow berm, because we found fish out in the puddles behind this berm after the 2009 flood." The solution involved reconnecting the tributary to the river while improving the overall levee system. However, the project highlighted the regulatory complexities of modern flood management. The artificial wetland created by the substandard berm had to be replaced, leading the county to purchase the Dahlberg Road site to establish its own wetland mitigation bank. "You can really slow down a project if you don't have wetland mitigation figured out ahead of time," Harris noted, underscoring the importance of advance planning for environmental compliance. ## Aging Infrastructure and Innovative Solutions A significant portion of Harris's presentation focused on the systematic replacement of aging culverts throughout the county's levee system. Built primarily in the 1950s to support agricultural drainage, these culverts had reached the end of their useful life and were failing with increasing frequency. The county's response went beyond simple replacement. New culverts were sized larger to provide better drainage and fish passage, but the real innovation came in the form of self-regulating tide gates. "These new gates actually have a sensor on the upstream side that senses the upstream water level and can keep the door open until the upstream water level gets to a certain point and then the door closes," Harris explained. This technology represented a fundamental shift in philosophy. "Most of the time the gates are open, instead of most of the time being closed. So that means the fish get access to these tributaries a whole lot more than they used to, and the farmers like them better, because we put in bigger pipes and they drain a lot better." The self-regulating gates solved multiple problems simultaneously—improving drainage for farmers, providing fish access to tributary streams, and reducing maintenance issues caused by debris accumulation in the older gate systems. ## High Creek: Legal Settlement Becomes Model Project The High Creek sediment trap project emerged from a different set of circumstances—a lawsuit following the 1990 floods that somehow resulted in the county being held responsible for flood damages. The legal settlement required the county to form a flood control zone district and develop a solution for the sediment problems that were causing repeated flooding. "The settlement basically said that the county would form a flood control zone district and then do a study and figure out what the right thing to do here was," Harris explained. The solution involved two sediment traps: a coarse sediment trap upstream of the highway and a finer sediment trap downstream. The infrastructure now requires regular maintenance, with the county cleaning out the traps every year or two to maintain their capacity. While this represents an ongoing operational commitment, it has prevented the bridge clogging and widespread flooding that previously occurred during storm events. ## Jones Creek: Community Collaboration and Debris Flow Management The Jones Creek project represented perhaps the most complex undertaking, involving extensive land acquisition, community engagement, and the construction of a significant debris flow barrier. The original situation was dramatically dangerous, with the Turkington Road bridge regularly buried under sediment and debris flows. "Very, very dangerous situation out there," Harris noted, showing a photograph of the bridge completely submerged except for small markers indicating its location. The project required extensive community work, with some "challenging homeowners" and complex property negotiations spanning nearly two decades. The final solution involved rerouting the road and constructing a setback berm specifically designed for debris flow protection. Completed in 2023 at a cost of $5.5 million, with the county contributing just under $1.4 million, the project again demonstrated the county's ability to leverage grant funding for major infrastructure improvements. ## Future Challenges and the Everson-Sumas Problem Harris acknowledged that while the county had made significant progress on many fronts, the most challenging area—the Everson-Sumas corridor—remained largely unaddressed by the original 1999 plan. "They didn't have the tools. So they kind of punted on the whole Everson-exact thing," she explained. The lack of adequate hydraulic modeling tools in 1999 meant that planners couldn't properly evaluate options for the area where the Nooksack River overflows into the Sumas River system during major floods. Since Harris's arrival, the county had developed sophisticated modeling capabilities and was finally making progress on this most complex challenge. "I think, you know, like we, you know, I guess it was somewhat fortunate that I was late in my career and could jump on that 21 flood and really focus our energy to get to the point that, you know, I feel like in the last three, four years, we've done more to get to this solution than we had in the last 20," she reflected. ## Regulatory Challenges and Agricultural Drainage The presentation took on a more urgent tone when Council Member Ben Elenbaas raised concerns about the difficulties facing local drainage districts. His questions highlighted a growing tension between environmental regulations and agricultural needs that threatens to undermine the county's overall flood management strategy. Elenbaas described attending drainage district meetings where the same refrain was repeated: "We can't get the fisheries permit." He painted a picture of agricultural areas where normal farming operations had been disrupted by regulatory requirements that seemed disconnected from the original purpose of agricultural drainage systems. "It's just, you wouldn't believe the things that they're making folks do in these man-made ditches that were there solely to drain the farmland, not for habitat, but all of a sudden, we've made them habitat because of our political will," Elenbaas said, his frustration evident. Harris acknowledged the problem, noting that Travis Bauma and Frank Corey from her staff had worked with drainage improvement districts to develop five-year management plans, but the issue clearly required ongoing attention and potential policy intervention. ## Planning Integration and Future Coordination The meeting's most forward-looking discussion came from Council Member Jon Scanlon, who emphasized the need to better integrate flood management considerations into comprehensive planning processes. His comments reflected a growing recognition that land use decisions and flood infrastructure planning needed to be more closely coordinated. "I'd like us to be able to project forward, you know, based on UGAs and plans that cities have, plans that we have, that based on the maps that we have now. We know we have currently vulnerable populations, and we have cities that are potentially proposing ideas that make new residents vulnerable," Scanlon explained. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci responded that such integration was indeed the goal, though she acknowledged the challenge of bringing together multiple streams of technical analysis and policy considerations. She mentioned plans for a comprehensive mapping exercise at the July 22 Committee of the Whole meeting, designed to "compile and layer a lot of maps" to better understand the interactions between growth planning and hazard mitigation. ## Historical Context and Institutional Memory Throughout the presentation, Harris demonstrated the invaluable nature of institutional memory in complex infrastructure management. Her ability to recount the specific history of each project—from initial studies through construction challenges to long-term performance—illustrated why continuity in technical staff is so important for local governments. The 2005 Nooksack River Sediment Management Plan by Kerwood Liddell emerged from specific recommendations in the 1999 flood plan, leading to the crucial 2006 river baseline survey that provided the foundation for understanding long-term sediment accumulation patterns. This methodical approach to building technical knowledge over decades had enabled the county to develop increasingly sophisticated approaches to flood management. Harris's comment that "sometimes timing is everything" reflected not just the alignment of funding opportunities and technical capabilities, but also the importance of having experienced staff who could recognize and capitalize on those opportunities when they arose. ## Financial Strategy and Grant Leveraging A consistent theme throughout Harris's presentation was the county's success in leveraging relatively modest local investments into major infrastructure improvements through strategic grant applications. The Canyon Creek project's 10% local match, the Jones Creek project's 25% local contribution, and similar ratios on other projects demonstrated sophisticated grant management and project development capabilities. This approach had enabled the county to implement far more extensive flood protection than would have been possible with local funding alone, while ensuring that projects met multiple objectives including environmental enhancement and community protection. ## Closing Reflections As the meeting drew to a close, there was a palpable sense that an era was ending. Chair Galloway apologized for running Paula Harris two minutes late to her next meeting, a small gesture that somehow captured the busy, packed schedule of someone trying to complete decades of work before retirement. Council Member Elenbaas's plea that Harris "never retire" was delivered with obvious affection and respect, recognizing that her departure would leave a significant gap in the county's institutional capacity. The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m., but the implications of the discussion extended far beyond the brief 35-minute session. Harris had laid out not just a catalog of completed projects, but a framework for thinking about flood management as a long-term, collaborative enterprise that requires sustained technical expertise, community engagement, and strategic thinking about the intersection of human development and natural systems. The quarter-century of flood protection work she described represented more than infrastructure—it embodied a philosophy of working with natural systems rather than simply opposing them, of building community partnerships rather than imposing solutions, and of pursuing incremental progress while maintaining focus on long-term resilience. As Whatcom County faces an uncertain future of climate change and continued development pressure, the foundation Harris and her colleagues built provides both protection and precedent for the challenges ahead. Whether the county can maintain this level of technical expertise and strategic vision in the years to come may well determine how successfully it navigates the floods that will inevitably return.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Climate Action and Natural Resources Committee met on July 8, 2025, for a 35-minute presentation by Public Works staff on flood mitigation projects completed since the 1999 Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Paula Harris from Public Works presented an overview of eight major flood mitigation projects implemented over 25 years, including levee setbacks, creek restorations, and infrastructure improvements. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP):** A county-wide planning document adopted in 1999 that identified flood risks and recommended mitigation projects throughout the Nooksack River system. **Levee setback:** Moving flood control levees farther away from waterways to provide more room for natural flooding and reduce erosion damage while maintaining protection for communities and farmland. **Self-regulating tide gate:** Modern flood control equipment with sensors that automatically open and close based on water levels, allowing better fish passage and drainage than older manual gates. **Flood plains By Design:** A grant program that funds large-scale flood mitigation projects that integrate habitat restoration with flood protection. **Alluvial fan:** A triangular deposit of sediment where a creek flows from mountains onto flatter ground, often creating flood risks due to changing water patterns. **Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP):** A federal program that provides payments to farmers for retiring environmentally sensitive land from production. **Debris flow:** A type of landslide where water-saturated debris moves rapidly down slopes, particularly dangerous in mountain valleys. **Drainage improvement districts:** Local government entities that manage water drainage systems for agricultural areas. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Paula Harris | Public Works Department - Flood Mitigation Program | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member, Committee Chair | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Todd Donovan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Aly Pennucci | Deputy Executive | ### Background Context Whatcom County has experienced repeated flooding since the 1990s, causing millions in damages to farms, homes, and infrastructure. The 1999 flood plan was developed after major floods in 1989 and 1990, creating a roadmap for reducing flood risks throughout the Nooksack River watershed. These projects represent 25 years of implementation, totaling over $25 million in improvements with significant federal and state grant funding. The work becomes increasingly urgent as climate change brings more intense precipitation events to the region. The county's flood control system primarily protects agricultural areas using levees built in the 1950s that are now reaching the end of their useful life. Modern approaches emphasize working with natural systems rather than simply containing water, creating benefits for both flood protection and salmon habitat restoration. ### What Happened — The Short Version Paula Harris presented eight completed flood mitigation projects spanning 2005-2023, showing how the county has systematically addressed flood risks identified in the 1999 plan. Major accomplishments include the Bertrand Creek levee reconstruction ($340,000), Canyon Creek restoration ($5.6 million), Deming levee improvements, and the Jones Creek debris flow protection project ($5.5 million). These projects used innovative approaches like levee setbacks, log jams for energy dissipation, and self-regulating tide gates that benefit both flood protection and fish habitat. Council members discussed connecting this flood work to comprehensive planning decisions about where to locate future growth. They also raised concerns about drainage district maintenance challenges due to environmental permitting requirements that are affecting agricultural operations. ### What to Watch Next - Comprehensive Plan discussions at the July 22 Committee of the Whole meeting will integrate flood risk mapping with growth planning decisions - Continued implementation of the updated Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan with several large projects in development - Resolution of drainage district permitting issues that are affecting agricultural operations and flood management ---

**Q:** When was Whatcom County's Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan adopted? **A:** October 1999, after major floods in 1989 and 1990 prompted comprehensive planning. **Q:** What is the most expensive flood project completed to date? **A:** Canyon Creek restoration at $5.6 million total cost, with the county contributing only $570,000. **Q:** What innovative flood control technology has the county adopted for culverts? **A:** Self-regulating tide gates with sensors that automatically open and close based on upstream water levels. **Q:** How many major flood mitigation projects did Paula Harris present? **A:** Eight projects completed between 2005-2023, ranging from levee repairs to major creek restorations. **Q:** What percentage of Canyon Creek project costs did the county pay? **A:** Just over 10% ($570,000 of $5.6 million), with the rest from grants. **Q:** Which creek project addressed debris flow risks? **A:** Jones Creek, where the county built setback berms and acquired flood-prone properties. **Q:** What year did Paula Harris start working for Whatcom County? **A:** 1998, arriving when the flood plan was going through environmental review. **Q:** What is the Flood plains By Design program? **A:** A grant program that funds large-scale projects integrating flood protection with habitat restoration. **Q:** Where are most of the county's levees located? **A:** Protecting agricultural areas, built around the 1950s and now reaching end of useful life. **Q:** What major lawsuit led to the High Creek sediment traps? **A:** A lawsuit after 1990 floods where homeowners sued the county and won a settlement. **Q:** How long did the Jones Creek project take from study to completion? **A:** From 2004 debris flow study to 2023 completion - nearly 20 years. **Q:** What natural feature divides water flow between the Nooksack River and Canada? **A:** The divide along Everson-Emerson Road, where water on the north side flows to Canada. **Q:** What is CREP? **A:** Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program - federal payments to farmers for retiring sensitive land. **Q:** Which committee will discuss integrating flood risks with growth planning? **A:** Committee of the Whole at their July 22, 2025 meeting. **Q:** What ongoing maintenance issue affects agricultural drainage? **A:** Environmental permitting requirements that prevent routine cleaning of agricultural ditches. ---