Smalma
I'm sorry!
I did what we talk about last week!
I should of ask question before I talk about it.

Hey Todd,

[off topic] Did you drift the Sauk down to the Faber launch that day? Mike was with me btw.

TC,

Nah...we banked it on the upper Skag, and a little on the Sauk. Two of our three bank spots on the Skag were torched, but one is still looking pretty good after the floods.

No steel for us

Fish on...

Todd

Just a note about property protection from river damage.

A couple of years ago (yeah, right...probably five years ago) a fellow with the last name of Rose drove a dozer into the Quilcence to move some gravel around and protect his property during a flood (or right after..not sure).

State sued and lost. Seems property owners do have some rights when it comes to losing their homes to raging water.

So to those radicals who think "Fish first at all cost"........think again. Perhaps a little compassion for the land owner just MAY be in order.

Fun5Acres, Can you get us more information on this case - case #, jurisdiction, etc.? I would really like to follow up on this one to see what happened.

The laws were probably violated by someone dredging out an old channel in the Sauk and the following is not meant to excuse any criminal activity. It is meant to validate some of what JohnnyCoho and ONTHESAUK said concerning understanding where the people who live their are coming from.


Flood Damage Lingers

SNOHOMISH COUNTY - With this year's floods came damage and destruction that are still haunting homeowners

"We have a house up there and haven't been able to get to it since the floods," said John Miller who owns a place near Darrington.

Along the Sauk River residents were hit particularly hard. Banks washed away, taking with them foundations, homes, and roadways.

At a town meeting in Darrington Saturday, property owners demanded help from Snohomish County. Residents want the roads fixed and the damage made a priority.

But John Koster with the Snohomish County Council says they simply don't have the money, so the county will be asking for federal aid.

Residents are also hoping the federal government will ease a 32 year ban on dredging, rock removal, and stabilizing the banks along the Sauk. The federal rules were put in place to protect the river's habitat.

--- --- ---

Homeowners seek protection from \'wild\' river


DARRINGTON, Wash. - It’s become a situation of "man versus nature" for many landowners along an east Snohomish County river.

After nature appeared to be winning, one man took matters into his own hands and tried to change the course of the Sauk River. On Saturday, dozens of property owners near Darrington attended a meeting to find out what, if anything, they can do.

Many property owners feel the Sauk River's "wild and scenic" designation has shackled them from protecting their homes. Many moved there attracted to the river's natural beauty, but the river has since undercut their dreams and turned enemy to many homeowners.

Fran Gruszka's retirement plans have eroded and washed away. Last October, the Sauk ran rampant and in its fury decided to change its course. It has been happening since the beginning of time - a flood forces a river to carve a new channel.

But congressional protection of the Sauk has since hindered Gruszka and many homeowners from carving out a new life for themselves.

"It's a big loss," she said. "Basically we're going to have to start over from scratch."

In Gruszka's case, the designation has proven a sticking point in her flood insurance claim. Others claim the federal government's 1978 "wild and scenic" protection of the Sauk prevents them from protecting their property against future disasters.

"People were put there to manage nature. If nature's going to run amok, then counties shouldn't be selling homes on floodplains or taking taxes from people on floodplains," said Joan Burden, who bought her recreational riverside property a decade before the government acted to protect the waterway.

On Saturday, her daughter proposed creating a local governing body to dredge the river and yet protect the habitat in efforts to save landowners' property.

Many who attended the packed meeting feel the same frustration that compelled an unnamed person to take matters into his own hands and use earthmoving equipment to try to control the sauk.

Yesterday I floated the Sauk
I am still amazed that it happen
I know it's not all from the "guy" but the flood of Oct. it's really bad up there.

These people *****ing about the river damaging their propety kind of remind me of the time I was living in Dallas.

All three years I lived there a river (the Trinity?) flooded out pretty much the same people. Each year people whined about what a tragedy it was and federal disaster relief money was poured in to rebuild their homes only to have them destroyed again the next year.

Duh!! Maybe its not the brightest idea in the world to be living in a flood plain. I believe after the third year there was some talk of a federal buyout and putting the land off limits to development. Not sure what happened with that, but I wouldn't be suprised if we tax payers are still rebuilding the homes every year to this day.

My point is that if you choose to live in a flood plain don't be suprised if you get flooded. Nobody is making these people live there, if they don't like it they should move.

Yes, Eddie, I'll pursue it and get back to you. I remember his name...Norm Rose. I also know he got fed up with this state and moved to Oregon. I believe it was in '99. I can probably get his address as well, though I'm not too sure he would be very happy about discussing what happened. I believe the paper quoted him as saying it cost him $20k in legal fees.

Here's a thought....reseach the Port Townsend Leader issues.....and maybe the Port Angeles Daily News......there were several articles about it.

Thanks Fun5Acres, I will do that. If you come up with anything more, please let us know.

People up here do not want to move, and why should they. Most were born and raised up here and they are the most down to earth hard working people you will ever meet. Most also feel as if their rights were violated with the "Wild and Scenic" designation. It was forced upon them with no vote or public input on the matter. It was pretty much put upon a way of life that goes back before most of you were born.

My point in my post was to help others in understanding another view point and way of life. I only ask that you try and understand and put yourself in another mans shoes before you pass judgement on him.

With the earlier lynch mob mentality is it actualy suprising to any of you that locals up here distrust anyone from the outside especially Govt.

Most of you that know me already know where I stand on our fisheries and conservation but I will back this homeowner and others that live along the river on this one. The local govt will put in rip rap if a HWY is threatened, and did, but will not back a homeowner,..B.S.!! If you care about the rivers and the fishery up here as much as I do then help the locals out in the right way. Help advise on how rip rap can be put in like some old growth stumps cabled together to provide a safe place for the fish to hide and also protection for the homeowner as well during high water.

Ask yourselves; Would it be better served to distance yourselves further from a comunity you actually have a chance with in making a positive impact and establishing some rapport with. I think not!! WSC this is your chance, use it or lose it. Educate & offer a solution, dont condem!! Ya want the local comunities behind you and not against you, then back them not the Govt set to prosecute them.

KARMA!! What goes around comes around!!

I did get a chance to chat with a fellow who knows that section of river quite well, and his impression is that very little impact, if any, was had on redds or smolt in that area. Granted, that river holds many ESA redds and fish, but apparently (in his opinion) this specific area and the work that was done should not have harmed any of the future stocks.

I don't know enough to say yea or nay on his opinion.

JohnnyCoho: In many areas I do agree with you, but folks who have lived up here for so many years should also know that this river can get her dander up and wreek havoc at will...and therefore this needs to be accounted for when buying/building a home.

At some stage in the future (depending on how many more floods we have like last years) I too will have to do something to protect my home. What I would LIKE to do is to bring in about 5 loads of large (1/2 volkswagen sized) boulders and just roll them off the back bank onto the beach areas against the high-water bank. This would have -0- impact on the normal flow of the river (or even up to the 25' mark), but would provide a barrier for the flood waters to bounce off of when running above 30'.

If that ever becomes the case, rest assured I'll be the first guy in line with plans and looking for a permit.

Mike B

Johnny Coho,

You're wrong about one thing. There was a ten year very public process that led to designating the Sauk River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I understand that people may be upset, but complaining (can't use *****ing on this BB) about a public process while they sat on their @ss while the process ran its course doesn't elicit my sympathy.

Also, designated or not, the Sauk is a bonafide wild and dynamic river. It floods severely. Always has and alway will unless a flood control dam is built. Of course such a dam would permanently destroy the very property along the river that residents want to protect. Actually, I think the best thing we could do for Sauk valley residents is give them a copy of the book, "The Control of Nature." Punch line is that, except in small cases, it can't usually be done, especially cost-effectively. I think it comes down to tough choices, learn to live with it, or don't live there.

I do feel bad for any resident's loss. However, I cannot sympathize with the ignorance that lets someone live there and believe they really won't be affected by flooding eventually.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I can tell you another place where Johnny stands—he is a member of the Search and Rescue, Coast Guard Certified. He has played a part in saving lives of people that were faced with their last breath. It’s not uncommon for people that live in these spoken type communities to take whatever means to help another in need. You may be thank full some day that your life or your child’s life was saved because one of these people looked out their window and saw you in distress.

I cant say I don’t break the law, on my way to work I was 7 miles over the speed limit. I CAN say that if I saw my house being over run with flood water and my family in a life threatened situation that I would do what ever it took to fight it. Fortunately, I have not had to endure to make that decision. I would ask my community, my government that has no problem spending my tax money, to let me see some of that money in action. Many of our “Wild and Scenic” rivers have been destroyed by man. I was not around when they where built, but HOW MANY DAMS ARE ON THE COLUMBIA? What happened to the guy that PUT A DAM ON THE ELWHA? Gee, what a mistake that was. Would have been nice to see what the Grand Canyon would have been without all the DAMS.

I don’t think these people are ignorant to living next to a river and not facing flood. Like the couple that puts a house on a golf course, should not expect a Titlest in their cereal bowl.

I guess, Johnny’s point-I get it. Put yourself in the situation. If you want to get pissed at people, look at all the shrimp containers, beer cans and other crap IN the Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Fun5Acres - Unfortunately, I was unable to find the information in the PT paper. Probably the Internet archives don't go back far enough. Are you sure there was a lawsuit filed? When I do a Google Search, I find nothing. Any help you could offer would be great.

On another note, if Norm Rose or anyone else make changes to the riverbed it would certainly seem to put him at some liability for any damages downstream. That water has to go somewhere. If someone could prove that his actions caused a downstream owner to suffer damages, I think (not a lawyer though), he could be held liable for those damages.

In regards to Government help and Government actions - I certainly hope that Snohomish County would protect their roads. Those roads, somewhat like the river, are owned by the public and the Government has an obligation to keep them functional. Once again, their actions can not just shift the problem to someone downstream. If so, I believe they would be liable for damages - although, to be fair, it is not easy to sue a County and win.

In regards to the articles that Plunker posted - one line really stood out. ""People were put there to manage nature. If nature's going to run amok, then counties shouldn't be selling homes on floodplains or taking taxes from people on floodplains," said Joan Burden, who bought her recreational riverside property a decade before the government acted to protect the waterway."

What an interesting viewpoint. People were put there to manage nature - Good luck, Nature has a ferocious bite sometime.

The counties shouldn't be selling homes on floodplains - I know of no counties that are in the residential real estate sales business.

In regards to the taxes, she has a point, but only if she no longer owns the property.

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware is never more sage advice than when you look to buy land near a river. And it does require a heightened responsibility on the part of the landowner. If they didn't know that going in, shame on them.

Quote from eddie:
"Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware"

That is truly scary eddie...
considering that you are a salesman by profession.

Sage advice for purchasing something from you?

Hey Plunker - Who better to hear that advice from than a sales professional?

Plunk, It certainly would be if I was selling the Project Management software (my product) to perform Accounting functions. In other words, if I try to make my client believe that the product I sell is something that its not - then I'm a bad guy. And the buyer should beware. Same with a river. If I buy land on the river, I darn well know that the river I see today can be totally different tomorrow. If I don't know that, then what I get I may deserve.

That is even scarier eddie.

Are you telling me that all the time that I have spent learning all the best spots on my favoritest most secret river is wasted?
:p

Plunk, I'm afraid it's true. And you can trust me - I'm in Sales.