Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee

# Comprehensive Narrative: Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee Meeting ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee convened on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 10:46 a.m. in a hybrid format at the County Courthouse. Chair Elizabeth Boyle called the meeting to order with all seven council members present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, John Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The committee rearranged its agenda to address two significant items: a resolution supporting state funding for foundational public health services, and a comprehensive presentation on flood management and early action opportunities following recent devastating floods. The meeting reflected the urgent nature of both public health infrastructure needs and the ongoing flood crisis that has repeatedly impacted communities throughout Whatcom County. ## Foundational Public Health Services Funding Resolution The committee began with AB 2026-119, a resolution calling on the state legislature to recognize public health as essential and maintain foundational public health services funding. Councilmember Scanlon introduced the item, explaining its origins: "So this item came to my attention when sitting in on a WSAC meeting that our State Association of Counties given the concerns around potential cuts to the funding that comes from the state to support our local health department." Scanlon noted that other counties were taking similar actions to encourage the legislature to address funding concerns. "Our Whatcom County Health and Community Services found out that other counties were taking similar actions to encourage the legislature to make some fixes to those funds," he said. With the legislative session still in progress, Scanlon emphasized the timing was crucial for this budget-related advocacy. Director Thomas Cuddy from Whatcom County Health and Community Services provided context for the funding at stake. "For context for the public this is a significant portion of our operating budget roughly 3.6 million dollars that serves almost every department or program within our department with some exceptions," Cuddy explained. He emphasized that these funds support infrastructure critical to public health and safety across jurisdictions. The funding supports approximately 30 positions within the health department, spanning multiple divisions. "24-25 full FTEs, technical positions, administrative positions, nursing positions, environmental health. So each role serves a very critical need for our jurisdiction," Cuddy detailed. He noted that while the funds aren't discretionary, there's significant local determination in their use, allowing Whatcom County to decide the best applications. The funding supports epidemiologists, data analysts, evaluation staff, and communications personnel who help the department understand community needs beyond those addressed by specifically directed funding streams. "Some of the staff supported by this put us in a position to make good decisions so epidemiologists, data analysts, people doing evaluations and communications so they give we can understand a sense of what are the needs in the community that aren't prescribed by specific directed funding," Cuddy explained. Regarding the funding's future, Cuddy shared some positive news: "We learn positive information that the budgets that most houses presented don't reflect the 50 million dollar cut so that's good news for us. They have not yet resolved the sourcing of those dollars and that's a long-term challenge because right now it's tied to the vapor tax." Councilmember Ellenbaas sought clarification about the "vapor tax errors" referenced in the resolution. Cuddy explained that the issue stemmed from how revenue was categorized: "Part of what occurred that cut funding was they separate out the non nicotine vapor revenue versus the nicotine based vapor revenue so that shrank or just shifted dollars and FPHS dollars were with the smaller pot so that left the fund exposed. It also left the cancer fund exposed." The discussion was brief but focused, with council members recognizing the importance of maintaining essential public health infrastructure. Councilmember Buchanan confirmed this aligned with their broader legislative priorities, asking whether it was included in their regular legislative asks for the year. Staff confirmed it was generally covered under broader health and community services support priorities, though not as specifically as this resolution outlined. Following minimal discussion, the committee unanimously approved the resolution 7-0, with all members voting yes: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, John Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. ## River and Flood Early Action Opportunities After a brief recess to allow public attendees to arrive for the flood presentation, the committee received a comprehensive briefing on flood management strategies and early action opportunities. Julie Anderson, River and Flood Manager, introduced the presentation with Paula Harris, noting they were condensing a four-hour meeting into approximately 20 minutes to focus on actionable items. Anderson explained the context: "This meeting we had planned actually we had a doodle pull out before the December flood so we really scurried to pull it together and really kind of framed a little differently acknowledging that this is a crisis situation our communities are in. We're getting a lot of political attention and we really wanted to try and turn this into an opportunity to really make things happen on the ground." ### Scientific Understanding of River Channel Changes Harris provided condensed scientific background on how river management over time has contributed to current flooding issues. She presented visual evidence of channel narrowing, showing images of the same river section upstream of Everson from 1999 through 2023. "You can see there's a levee on the left bank there's riprap on the right bank and you can see that through the course of this 24 period year period the open gravel bars in the 1999 image are covered with trees and you can actually start to see just how that rivers getting narrower over time," Harris explained. The scientific analysis revealed that vegetation establishment on gravel bars creates a cycle of sediment trapping and further narrowing. "Once it gets established on the bars then it starts trapping fine sediments and those bars get higher and higher so they're less prone to getting flooded over time which just kind of exacerbates that narrowing issue," Harris noted. The presentation demonstrated how locking the river in place with revetments prevents natural lateral migration and channel processes. "That channel migration is really the natural process that the river uses to rework and transport that sediment down the corridor and in doing so it also creates natural habitat," Harris explained. When this natural process is blocked, "it really becomes a managed system and if you don't manage it over time then it can't manage itself anymore because you've locked it." The practical impact of this narrowing was starkly illustrated through flood threshold data. Harris showed that flows required to cause overflow at Main Street had decreased significantly over time. "We used it to get used to take about 45,000 CFS in the river to cause overflow at Main Street and recently it's dropped 46,000 recently it's dropped quote you know and 21 our estimate was 30,000 it seems in this recent flood that we may have recovered a few thousand CFS." ### Strategic Response: Corridor Widening The scientific analysis pointed toward strategic corridor widening as a solution. The approach involves setting back levees to "give the river enough of a width of a quarter to translate those migration those meanders downstream and do that natural process and that ideally is going to create enough storage in the system so that is pulses of sediment coming in from upstream it can kind of meter that through store it and send it down more slowly over time." Harris emphasized the need for resilience given the continuous sediment supply: "We know we drain a volcano we have this endless supply of sediment that's going to keep coming over time but we may have just kind of encroached too much on the river." Modeling work examined different scenarios for corridor management. The team analyzed three approaches: doing nothing, setting back levees and letting the river do the work, or setting back levees and excavating channels to create immediate conveyance. "From what we've learned that's certainly the third one is what we're leaning towards because we're learning that we're just in a dire strait in terms of that lower threshold causing such huge impacts in our communities," Harris said. The modeling results showed concerning trends if no action is taken. "We found that if we do nothing we're going to the models predict that we will continue to see a rise in water surface elevation through there which means that lower thresholds will send that flow to the Everson-Sumas corridor so that basically that the problem is going to get worse," Harris explained. Conversely, intervention scenarios predicted capacity improvements. ### Early Action Project Focus The team identified an early action project focusing on the Everson overflow corridor. However, initial modeling of a comprehensive solution showed significant downstream impacts. "We found that there were significant impacts downstream half foot to a foot of increase," Harris reported. This created the classic floodplain management challenge: "What floodplain managers are not supposed to do is solve one problem at the expense of another one." The solution involves scaling back the initial approach and addressing downstream impacts through additional interventions. "We clearly can't jump from here to 2006 conditions so we're trying to kind of scale this back and look at what we could we do for more of an early action project," Harris explained. Current modeling focuses on creating hundred-foot channels upstream and downstream of the Everson bridge, which would shift about 4,000 CFS back downriver. While this still creates downstream impacts, the team has tools available including "levee setbacks and more channel creation downstream because this gravel is not just accumulating in Everson it's all the way down we've got acquisitions and elevations and flood proofing of ag structures." ### Basin-Wide Action Package The presentation outlined a comprehensive action package organized by geographic reaches. Basin-wide actions include acquisition, elevation, and relocation of at-risk structures, continued monitoring through biennial lidar flights and boat-based surveys, improved land use planning integration, updated FEMA mapping, enhanced emergency management response, and better public outreach and education. For Reach 1 (coastal area), the Lummi Nation has advanced significant work through their coastal zone resiliency plan. Key projects include the Ferndale levee improvement project, currently at 60% design and protecting three treatment plants, though funding challenges exist with $10 million grant maximums for an $18 million project. Additional priorities include Slater and Haxton Way elevation and flood proofing to prevent isolation of Lummi access during floods, and modifications to the aging Diking District One infrastructure. Reaches 2 and 3, the middle section between Everson and Ferndale, require corridor widening beyond the originally planned habitat improvements. "What we're finding is because of this narrowing we're gonna actually have to widen the corridor before we which will improve the habitat it's processes but we're also going to have to widen it not just add habitat features," Harris explained. Reach 4, from Deming to Everson, encompasses the major Everson corridor widening project. This involves channel creation upstream and downstream of the bridge, working with Trans Mountain to bury their pipeline deeper to enable levee setbacks, and potential state investment in a larger overflow bridge. "Trans Mountain has a pipeline that goes right across here that needs to be buried deeper across the floodplain for us to be able to set back that levee so we are working with them," Harris noted. For Reach 5 (Sumas area), the county is selecting consultants for a flood mitigation and resiliency planning study. Near-term solutions might include flood walls around critical infrastructure like the feed mill that affects agricultural industry, and around City Hall. For Nooksack and Everson, preliminary berm concepts are under development, with engineering contracts coming to council soon. The upper forks region has seen significant tribal habitat restoration work. "The tribes have really been doing most of the focus up in the upper forks they are been focused on habitat," Harris noted. Additional needs include channel migration and corridor analysis, habitat restoration, and addressing Potter Road isolation affecting tribal community access. ### Funding and Implementation Challenges The financial scope of needed work is substantial. Early capital actions were estimated at $182 million, while comprehensive long-term implementation could require $474 million. Harris provided perspective on these numbers, noting that the Chehalis Basin receives about $70 million per biennium from the state, suggesting a potential funding model. "My ray of hope that I've told people is that the Chehalis Basin when they started doing this work back after the Chehalis got hammered they were able to come up with a structure that the state has been supporting at the tune of about 70 million a biennium," Harris said. For additional perspective, she noted that Western Washington University spent $70 million retrofitting their gym, commenting that "my value system says our communities are worth more than a gym at Western." Funding sources will need to combine local, state, and federal resources. Director Coase outlined current state legislative requests: $13.05 million in the Senate proposal and $9 million in the house capital budget, though in different configurations requiring resolution during conference committee discussions. Council members raised pointed questions about funding strategies. Councilmember Stremler asked directly: "474 million dollars what's the key to finding and unlocking that kind of money like where's that coming from what do we got to do to to find that kind of money?" The discussion revealed active engagement with federal representatives, including visits from Representative Larsen and Senators Cantwell and Murray. However, officials emphasized the need for a concrete plan with specific costs to make effective federal requests. ### Technical and Regulatory Challenges Significant technical challenges emerged in the discussion, particularly around timing and sequencing. The Trans Mountain pipeline relocation represents a critical path item, with the company indicating a five-year timeline once feasibility is determined. Councilmember Buchanan questioned why the county should contribute funding given Trans Mountain's international scope, prompting discussion about shared responsibility for solutions. Permitting emerged as a major challenge. The team has engaged state agencies and hopes for support from the governor's regulatory assistance office. Emergency declarations were discussed as a potential tool for expediting work, though legal limitations were noted. As Harris explained: "If things change we could always and we've closed the emergency we get always declared it again but I think you know we're just now trying to define what the scope of work is." The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee unanimously requested that the executive declare an emergency to authorize immediate implementation of interim flood protection actions. However, legal counsel clarified that emergency declarations primarily waive purchasing requirements and don't address regulatory permitting hurdles, which are the more critical path items. ### Community Impact and Ongoing Displacement The human cost of recent floods remained prominent in discussions. Councilmember Rienstra noted that "many many families in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods are still displaced living in trailers living with friends or in other areas as they continue to do the repairs." Officials estimated approximately 20 families remain displaced from their homes. Community members have expressed frustration about the apparent disconnect between emergency road repairs using emergency declarations and the inability to use similar authorities for flood infrastructure. Executive staff acknowledged these concerns while explaining legal constraints around new construction versus infrastructure repair. Communication with affected communities was identified as needing improvement. "We are developing a master communication plan and it's something that you know looking back after this last flood we kind of wish we had started sooner so that the community would know what we have been working on and that we're really making great progress," Harris said. ### Council Response and Next Steps Council members demonstrated strong interest in removing barriers to implementation. Councilmember Scanlon emphasized: "Let us know where those barriers are so that we can help remove them and make your job easier and make this plan work." Councilmember Elenbaas advocated for an aggressive interpretation of county authority under the charter, arguing: "The charter says the its intention is to give our local government as much power as we can have and so I interpret that as as somebody tells us no we should probably do what's best for our citizens." Legal counsel requested clarification of specific questions about emergency authority scope for follow-up analysis. The discussion revealed tension between the urgency council members feel and the regulatory constraints on rapid implementation. The committee requested additional legal analysis on emergency authorities and continued advocacy opportunities at state and federal levels. Council members expressed willingness to support regulatory changes and work through partnerships with other affected counties and organizations like WSAC and NACo. ## Looking Forward The meeting concluded with recognition that this represents the beginning of sustained focus on comprehensive flood solutions. The scientific understanding is now in place, early action projects are being refined through intensive modeling work, and the political attention creates opportunity for significant resource mobilization. However, the scope of needed work—both in terms of financial resources and technical implementation—represents a generational challenge requiring sustained commitment across multiple levels of government. The frequency of recent flood events and the demonstrated reduction in flood thresholds create urgency that may help drive the political will necessary for implementation. The committee's unanimous support for the public health funding resolution and engaged discussion of flood solutions demonstrated alignment around protecting essential community infrastructure and services. As communities continue recovery from recent floods while facing the prospect of increasingly frequent events, the pressure for action continues to build. The meeting ended with commitments for continued legal analysis, ongoing technical work to define project scopes, and sustained advocacy at state and federal levels to secure necessary resources. The challenge ahead involves translating scientific understanding and community urgency into concrete implementation despite significant financial, technical, and regulatory obstacles.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-PWH-2026-02-24 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee met on February 24, 2026, to discuss a resolution supporting state funding for public health services and received a comprehensive presentation on flood mitigation strategies following the recent December 2025 flood event. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS):** State funding program that provides approximately $3.6 million annually to Whatcom County Health and Community Services, supporting about 30 positions across multiple departments to maintain basic public health infrastructure. **Vapor Tax:** A state tax on vaping products that funds public health programs. Recent changes separated nicotine and non-nicotine vapor revenues, reducing the funding pool available for FPHS and exposing it to potential cuts. **River Channel Migration:** The natural process where rivers move laterally across floodplains over time, reworking and transporting sediment downstream while creating habitat. This process has been largely stopped by levees and revetments. **Revetments:** Riprap (rock placement) along riverbanks that prevents lateral channel migration but contributes to channel narrowing by stopping natural sediment transport processes. **Flow Split:** The division of river flow at Everson where water either continues down the main Nooksack River toward Ferndale or overflows into the Everson-Sumas corridor during high water events. **Channel Narrowing:** The process where river channels become constricted over time as vegetation grows on gravel bars and traps fine sediments, reducing the river's capacity to carry flood flows. **FLIP Reach Team:** Flood, Land, and Integration Project team that conducts scientific analysis and develops flood mitigation strategies for different reaches of the Nooksack River system. **Levee Setbacks:** Moving existing levees further from the river channel to provide more room for natural river processes while maintaining flood protection for communities. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Chair, Public Works & Health Committee | | John Scanlon | Council Member who introduced the FPHS resolution | | Thomas Cuddy | Director, Whatcom County Health and Community Services | | Julie Anderson | River and Flood Manager, Whatcom County Public Works | | Paula Harris | Flood Management Staff, Whatcom County Public Works | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | ### Background Context This meeting occurred just two months after the December 2025 flood, which was the second major flood event in the Nooksack River basin within four years (following the November 2021 flood). The frequency of these events has raised urgent concerns about the river system's capacity and the need for immediate action. The public health funding issue stems from state budget discussions where Foundational Public Health Services faced potential $50 million cuts statewide. While the proposed cuts were removed from recent budget proposals, the long-term funding source remains unstable due to changes in how vapor tax revenue is categorized. The flood presentation revealed scientific findings that channel narrowing has significantly reduced the river's capacity. What once took about 45,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) to cause overflow at Main Street in Everson now occurs at approximately 30,000 CFS, with some recent recovery to around 33,000 CFS. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee unanimously approved a resolution asking the state legislature to maintain funding for public health services. Council Member Scanlon explained that other counties were taking similar action to protect this critical funding source. The bulk of the meeting focused on a detailed presentation about flood mitigation strategies. Staff explained how decades of river management through levees and revetments has caused the Nooksack River channel to narrow significantly, reducing its capacity to handle flood flows and increasing the frequency of overflow events that impact Everson and Sumas. The presentation outlined both immediate "early action" projects and long-term solutions. The most urgent project involves widening the river corridor at Everson through channel excavation, though this is complicated by a Trans Mountain pipeline that must be relocated first. Cost estimates range from $182 million for early actions to $474 million for comprehensive long-term solutions. Council members expressed urgency about finding funding sources and removing regulatory barriers, with discussion about whether emergency declarations could expedite project timelines. ### What to Watch Next - State legislative action on Foundational Public Health Services funding during the current session - Development of specific project designs for the Everson corridor widening project over the next few months - Flood Control Zone District decisions on emergency declarations and project prioritization - Federal and state funding requests as project scopes become more defined ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-PWH-2026-02-24 **Q:** What was the vote on the public health funding resolution? **A:** The committee unanimously approved AB 2026-119 with a 7-0 vote, recommending it to the full council. **Q:** How much does Foundational Public Health Services provide to Whatcom County annually? **A:** Approximately $3.6 million, which supports about 30 positions across multiple departments. **Q:** What caused the potential cuts to public health funding? **A:** Changes to vapor tax categorization separated nicotine and non-nicotine revenue streams, shrinking the funding pool available for public health programs. **Q:** What has happened to the river's flood capacity at Everson over time? **A:** The threshold for overflow has dropped from about 45,000 CFS to approximately 30,000 CFS, with some recent recovery to around 33,000 CFS. **Q:** What is causing the Nooksack River to lose capacity? **A:** Channel narrowing due to vegetation growing on gravel bars and trapping sediments, which is exacerbated by revetments that prevent natural channel migration. **Q:** What is the estimated cost for early flood mitigation actions? **A:** Approximately $182 million for immediate priority projects across the river system. **Q:** What is the total estimated cost for comprehensive flood solutions? **A:** Around $474 million for long-term flood mitigation throughout the Nooksack River basin. **Q:** What is preventing immediate work on the Everson corridor widening? **A:** A Trans Mountain pipeline that crosses the area must be relocated deeper underground, which could take up to five years. **Q:** Who chairs the Public Works & Health Committee? **A:** Council Member Elizabeth Boyle serves as committee chair. **Q:** What is the FLIP Reach Team? **A:** The Flood, Land, and Integration Project team that conducts scientific analysis and develops flood mitigation strategies for different river reaches. **Q:** What natural process has been stopped by river management? **A:** Channel migration, where rivers naturally move laterally across floodplains to transport sediment and create habitat. **Q:** How often are major floods now occurring in the Nooksack basin? **A:** Two major floods in four years (2021 and 2025), indicating increased frequency of significant flood events. **Q:** What tool besides channel excavation is being considered for flood mitigation? **A:** Levee setbacks, which involve moving levees further from the river to provide more room for natural processes. **Q:** What emergency powers were discussed in relation to flood projects? **A:** Council members explored whether emergency declarations could help expedite permitting and remove regulatory barriers. **Q:** Where are the most urgent flood protection needs identified? **A:** The Everson corridor where river overflow splits between the main channel and the Everson-Sumas floodway. **Q:** What happened to families displaced by the December 2025 flood? **A:** Approximately 20 families remained displaced as of the meeting date, living in trailers or temporary housing. **Q:** What role do revetments play in the flood problem? **A:** These rock placements prevent natural channel migration, contributing to sediment buildup and channel narrowing over time. **Q:** What funding sources are being pursued for flood projects? **A:** State legislative requests of $13.05 million (Senate) and $9 million (House), plus federal funding through congressional representatives. **Q:** What communication improvements were mentioned? **A:** Staff acknowledged the need for better public outreach and are developing a master communication plan to keep communities informed. **Q:** What comparison was made to illustrate the scale of needed funding? **A:** The Chehalis Basin receives about $70 million every two years from the state for similar flood mitigation work. ---