Should the town of Hamilton stay in the Skagit floodway?
A new documentary film, 'Town at the Tipping Point,' reveals the love Hamilton residents feel for their often-flooded home — and the millions they keep collecting from FEMA.
U.S. Navy Journalist 2nd Class Joaquin Juatai/Wikimedia Commons
In its timber heyday Hamilton, founded in 1891, boasted a population of 2,500. A town of about 350 now, it nestles on the banks of the Skagit River about 80 miles north of Seattle. It also half-drowns in the Skagit when the river rises.
The town has flooded more than 17 times in the last century, and now, every three years or so, the river covers the entire town up to nine feet deep. Residents view the floods as part of their way of life. Even after the destruction wrought by Skagit waters in 1990, 1995, 1996, 2003, and 2007, many townspeople see no need for change.
This is partly because Hamilton residents have been supported in rebuilding every time with FEMA money. FEMA estimates it has spent over $10 million in the last 20 years on Hamilton. Some other estimates of total payouts to residents rise to more than $20 million. At the same time, property values have declined dramatically, attracting impoverished newcomers in search of inexpensive housing.
Beyond the huge sums of taxpayer dollars sent to residents in response to repeated claims for damages, flood pollution from the town threatens the Skagit River Delta. This watershed is home to one of Washington state’s largest wintering colonies of bald eagles and is the spawning site for six species of salmon.
Politicians pledge during each crisis to find a solution, but political will and leadership seem to recede with the floodwaters. A three-decade effort to move the town to higher ground stalled again in 2008, a casualty of the economic meltdown. Now climate change and the predicted El Niña winter make the chances very high of a massive flood in the coming months.
My documentary film “Town at the Tipping Point” examines reasons why Hamilton's people insist on living in the floodway, the consequences of their choices, and how the town as well as the delta watershed might be saved.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 6:21 a.m. Inappropriate
The Corps of Engineers has never understood conservancy. To understand this subject you must be familiar with the Little Miami Valley Conservancy District, which has protected Dayton OH and surrounds from flooding for 90 years. You may also track this down by finding Arthur Morgan, the engineer in charge, who wrote a most interesting book on the subject.
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 9:49 a.m. Inappropriate
I wonder how much they would insist on living there if FEMA did not bail them out anymore? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 12:17 p.m. Inappropriate
On the surface it seems dumb to bail out a town more than twice from flooding. Third time, move or else. I don't mind if farmers want to farm flood plains, that's part of what makes soil rich, but building houses in it not on stilts is plain dumb.
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 3:37 p.m. Inappropriate
"A three-decade effort to move the town to higher ground stalled again in 2008, a casualty of the economic meltdown."
That economic meltdown didn't prevent congress from giving money to move the Hoh tribe to higher ground. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013679641_hoh15m.html
And that economic meltdown didn't prevent congress from giving money to move the Quileute tribe to higher ground. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013720131_quileute20m.html
Maybe its a matter of priorities and political paybacks.
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate
This whole situation is very complex. I feel that if i were a hamilton resident, i would be very conflicted between the home that i had built and how to rebuild my life in a new place. After watching this film i see how we as tax payers all pay for the bucolic lifestyle that the hamilton residents enjoy. man this is heavy. -Dr. J
Posted Tue, Dec 21, 10:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Jennifer Jones has done a great piece on this issue with her film which I have watched twice now. My heart is, and will ever be, in historic preservation. However, when the flood water will win this one; it has in the past and it will in the future. It seems like the time to relocate to higher ground has come. I am sure this is a terrible situation for the residents, but they are in a flood zone and this is not safe for them or for the tax dollars that continually must be used.
Posted Wed, Dec 22, 7:58 a.m. Inappropriate
So in the spirit of restore Seattle's historic waterfront we should probably let the Seawall fail and allow the sound to reclaim Pioneer Square. Just imagine how expensive it will be to replace the Tunnel with a viaduct over the newly re-established tidal marshlands.
Posted Thu, Dec 23, 3:24 p.m. Inappropriate
The solution is simple: systematically purchase each parcel within Hamilton at fair market value as soon as it is placed on the market by a willing seller, and remove all structures from the purchased parcels. Over time, the entire floodway and flodplain where Hamilton formerly existed will become a nice chunk of open space for public enjoyment and to protect its natural resource value. It goes without saying that future future land use fiascos like this should be nipped in the bud by actual floodplain protection vs. policies and laws that are not carried out.
Posted Tue, Dec 28, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate
I was involved in this project for several years. There were several impediments to moving the town, including (initially) the GMA. But the real issue was lack of federal funding. Though NFIP insurance (which the article refers to as "FEMA",) paid out 10 times the cost of moving the town over 20 years, NFIP insurance cannot be used to move the town. It would have cost $3M in federal funding to move the town (against $20M in flood costs during the same period,) but the money would come from the same pot that is available to all other cities (including Seattle). And Hamilton only has 75 voters. (The remodel of the Mount Baker Theater in Bellingham got more funding than the entire town of Hamilton the last year I lobbied for state funding.) The Iraq war and New Orleans siphoned away a lot of money, and the Washington State federal delegation offered funding only if another project went without. It was not phrased that way, but that is what they meant. The plan to move Hamilton included the purchase of 500 residential units out of the Skagit River Floodway and converting the area to open space, salmon habitat, etc. But it was a 20 year plan competing for 2 year grants against Katrina/New Orleans, body armor in Iraq, Chehalis and Mount Vernon. Moving a town is more like putting a man on the moon - it takes a generation of committed planning and funding. The money was never there. The NFIP will pay more in flood insurance payments than the cost of moving the town with the next major flood event. But NFIP is a pot of money that does not directly compete with other federally funded projects, so it is easier to pay insurance money for flood damage than to invest a large (but in the long run, smaller,) sum to fix the problem permanently.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.