To correct a 50-year-old mistake, WA must act now to address I-5 flood risk at Nisqually

Times were different. Money was tight. Environmental regulations, as they exist today, were still years away.

There are plenty of reasons why a roughly 2.5 mile stretch of Interstate 5 over the Nisqually River delta between DuPont and Lacey is now a ticking time bomb with potentially severe economic, ecological and national security implications.

What’s less excusable is the apparent lack of urgency and political resolve to fix it.

Much has changed in the five decades since the Washington State Department of Transportation cut corners and costs when it added a southbound bridge over the Nisqually, carelessly creating a chokepoint in the river that now threatens fish and wildlife while putting the transportation corridor at an increased risk of flooding.

What hasn’t changed is our elected leaders’ responsibility to meet the challenges of the current day head on.

So far, they have not, instead seeming content to study the problem ad nauseam while ignoring the reality of climate change and passing the buck to a future generation.

It’s an approach that must change — in the state capital of Olympia, and amongst our congressional delegation in Washington D.C. — starting now.

As The News Tribune’s Josephine Peterson reports in the three-part series “Lifeline in peril,” so much of this was preventable. Back in the 1960s, if WSDOT hadn’t decided to pack this stretch of freeway with rocks, concrete and dirt, we wouldn’t be in the predicament we are today. While there’s little doubt that a second bridge over the Nisqually — and the three lanes of southbound traffic that the project added to the causeway — were needed, there’s also no question that the design and execution of the multi-million dollar undertaking were hamstrung by penny pinching and a lack of foresight.

Today, the river’s passage under I-5 is constricted to just four outlets, none of which are wider than 180 feet. At a cost of $3.5 million — which is about $27.3 million adjusted for inflation — filling the area below I-5 and creating man-made paths for a river that naturally flowed as several tributaries seeping out into Nisqually Reach was seen as a better and cheaper option than maintaining concrete piers that originally held up the freeway, WSDOT spokesperson Doug Adamson told The News Tribune. At the time, WSDOT was so cash-strapped that the agency was forced to borrow money to pay contractors.

Adamson acknowledged that the decision to use fill to support Interstate 5 across the estuary wouldn’t be repeated today.

“The roadway is structurally and seismically sound, but we now recognize they are not the best structure for the environment,” Adamson said.

So what’s at stake, and what might it cost to fix it? Unfortunately, thanks in large part to the snail’s pace of government and an inexcusably lax response from many local lawmakers who should have started tackling the problem years ago, we know much more about the former than we do the latter.

Already, the I-5 Nisqually pinch point is causing a portion of the river’s current to travel back upstream. With climate change causing wetter winters, flooding created by higher discharge of rainwater runoff from Mount Rainier has the potential to jeopardize I-5, according to USGS scientist Eric Grossman. Over the coming decades, experts and multiple studies suggest that the risk of catastrophic flooding will only increase. Initial models by the U.S. Geological Survey show that a flood that would submerge the interstate could occur within 20 years.

As this region learned during the deadly 2017 Amtrak train derailment in DuPont, severing I-5 — even for a short period of time — can have massive consequences. Not only is traffic cutoff, but so is southbound access to Joint Base Lewis-McChord. With an estimated 40 percent of the base’s workforce living south of the base, flooding that would close I-5 has been deemed a national security risk, Peterson reported.

Then there’s the ecological impact in an area that’s historically been the South Puget Sound’s largest producer of Chinook salmon, a preferred food for the endangered southern resident Orcas. The Nisqually Tribe’s natural resources director, David Troutt, noted that 80% of chinook salmon use the Nisqually Delta to adapt from freshwater to saltwater. Rising sea levels caused by climate change have already encroached on the river, causing a decrease in salinity of the area. Based on the number of salmon returning to the Nisqually River, in 1987, the tribe had 105 fishing days, Troutt told The News Tribune. In 2018, fishermen could only fish for eight days.

If there’s a silver lining to be had, it’s that the convergence of environmental, economic and national security concerns surrounding the future of I-5 over the Nisqually River delta have helped to bring much-needed attention to the problem. Together, the Nisqually Tribe and a multi-jurisdiction group known as the South Sound Military & Communities Partnership have actively begun seeking solutions. But the most sizable obstacle appears to be piecing together a state and federal political partnership with the ability to foot the bill of a fix. Removing the fill, raising freeway, replacing the bridges and widening I-5 would likely cost more than $4 billion, according to the group — making it one of the most expensive transportation projects in state history. They would like to begin work by 2027.

To date, it’s the only solution being offered — anywhere.

Asked about what comes next, Adamson said the state is currently awaiting the findings of yet another report — this one funded by the 2021 state legislature at a cost of $5 million. The third study of the problem in recent years, this one is expected to include a WSDOT review of potential solutions to the bridge, he said.

Meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Rep. Marilyn Strickland (WA-10) — who represents sections of Thurston and Pierce counties — told The News Tribune that she agrees with the need to rebuild I-5 in this crucial stretch of her district. To advocate for federal funding, Strickland said, she’s just waiting on a plan and price tag from the state.

The appropriate response from South Sound residents:

Great. What’s taking so long?