PORT TOWNSEND — The Board of Jefferson County Commissioners has reactivated the Chimacum drainage district.
Formed in the 1920s, the district was made inactive in the 1974, commissioner Heidi Eisenhour said.
“As we all know, there have been drainage issues for a long time, largely because of reed canary grass and other stewardship issues in the creek,” Eisenhour said. “We’re interested in (reactivating the district) as a potential tool for managing, the flow in (Chimacum) Creek.”
A main concern, according to Eisenhour and several public commenters, is the flooding of properties adjacent to the creek.
The next steps would include appointing an interim board, which would decide on a system for assessing taxes. Then a board election would be held Feb. 3, 2026. Residents who live within the district boundaries would be able to cast votes.
Taxes could be assessed to those living within the district benefit area, with property elevation, relative to the creek, factoring in to how much property owners would pay, said Joe Holtrup, Jefferson Conservation District’s manager.
The recommended assessment rate would have three categories: Land at elevations of 5 feet or less above the creek would be taxed at $2 per acre, 5 to 15 feet would be taxed at $1.50 per acre, and land at 15 feet or above would be taxed at 50 cents per acre.
Holtrup said an analysis of the biggest issues plugging up the creek was completed last year.
“We concluded that reed canary grass growing in the stream channel is the biggest problem,” he said. “There’s about 7 miles of stream channel that are chronically overgrown with reed canary grass.”
The grass can be dealt with, he said, but it has to be handled comprehensively on a regular basis.
“Every other year, or possibly once every three years,” Holtrup said. “It depends on the reach, and it depends on whether or not mowing is done on the steam banks.”
The Jefferson County Conservation District has secured a state Department of Fish and Wildlife permit on behalf of landowners on the creek to conduct grass removals, Holtrup said.
The removal would cost roughly $15,000 per mile, according to an analysis, Holtrup said. If a third of the work is completed on an annual basis, it could cost $35,000 per year, he added.
The format of an election has yet to be determined, but it could cost as much as $45,000 every two years, county election coordinator Quinn Grewell said.
Long-term, establishing trees and shrubs could shade out the reed canary grass, Holtrup said.
“As well as providing habitat and cooling the temperature of the stream, and making everything better,” he said.
Planting trees and shrubs that would potentially shade the grass out would be a long-term investment and require a fair amount of maintenance, Holtrup said.
The strategy depends on individual landowners and their willingness to participate in those programs, Holtrup said.
He added that the 7 acres currently being considered for management could be reduced to 2 miles, if the grass is adequately removed and shaded out.
The conservation district is willing to do the work, but it doesn’t want to manage the drainage district, Eisenhower said.
“I wouldn’t say we want to do the work,” Holtrup said. “But (we are) willing to do a lot of this, provide technical assistance, help securing the permits. We would much prefer the permit was in someone else’s name who has responsibility for all the work that gets done, such as the drainage district, which is one of the reasons why we’re advocating for that.”
The conservation district also has grant funds that could contribute to the work in the near-term, Holtrup said.
Beaver activity needs to be managed as well, Holtrup said.
“We just submitted a year permit application for beaver dam removal,” he said. “That only applies to dams that are one year or less old.”
Older dams have special conditions and require some mitigation, he said.
Most of public commenters were strongly supportive of reactivating the district. Mariah Lascola expressed an interest in seeing that all affected parties receive clearer communication about what is happening.
Eisenhower said postcards for a focus group have been sent to all addresses within the then-deactivated district.
“Our personal acreage, we have just over 18 acres, about half of it is underwater in the winter,” said Chimacum resident Crystal Taggart. “Last year, 2024, it was underwater for approximately the whole year. There was a big section about the size of a football field that stayed underwater the entire year.”
As of May, Taggart’s fields were no longer submerged, she said. She attributes the improvement to reed canary grass removal work.
Julie Boggs, operator of Westbrook Angus, a livestock farm in Chimacum, said it’s a countywide issue because it affects the food system.
“My animals feed this county,” she said.
Boggs said she still had water in her fields at this time last year. This year, they were drained by May, because of reed canary grass removals, she said.
County Assessor Jeff Chapman said the drainage district would face some practical questions.
“For example, Chimacum Creek Estates, the part that’s within the drainage district is in the creek is a common area and it doesn’t have an assessable entity,” he said.
If the acreage of the assessment was divided between all the lots in Chimacum Creek Estates, taxes would be assessed to residents not currently in the district, he said.
“So, do they get a vote on the commissioners? I mean, how will you address that?” Chapman asked. “You can’t just have an assessment and not have somebody to assess it to. And if you’re going to spread the acreage among all the lot owners, then the boundary for the district should be reconsidered.”
Jim Pearson of Port Hadlock, a former employee in the county’s public works department, said he was assigned to work with the Port Ludlow Drainage District through its formation.
He pointed out that, practically speaking, taxes could not be collected until 2027 based on district board budgeting cycles.
________
Reporter Elijah Sussman can be reached by email at elijah.sussman@sequimgazette.com.
