Thursday, November 12, 2026
A sweeping environmental project received the backing of the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners, as regional partners continue to seek state and federal funding needed to initiate construction and implementation.
The board approved a resolution that spells out support for the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Project, which aims to restore 260 acres of estuarine and salt marsh habitat in South Puget Sound.
The board unanimously backed the resolution, which was on the consent agenda of a business meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 20. A consent agenda packages items for one combined vote.
The resolution refers to the project as “a transformative, once-in-generations opportunity to restore the Deschutes Estuary, improve the health of Budd Inlet and the Deschutes River watershed, and address long-standing water quality, habitat, sediment, and public access challenges” that are associated with Capital Lake Basin.
The resolution also acknowledges management of the project under Washington State Department of Ecology, which took over the role from Washington State Department of Enterprise Services in 2025. Total project costs have been estimated to exceed $400 million.
Funding and governance of the project are detailed in an interlocal agreement between the City of Olympia, City of Tumwater, LOTT Clean Water Alliance, Port of Olympia, Squaxin Island Tribe and Thurston County.
The Tumwater Public Works Committee recently backed a similar resolution for the restoration project, which would also result in the removal and replacement of the 5th Avenue Bridge, as well as removal of the dam. The project is in the design and permitting process.
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the restoration project is available for review or download here. The public can weigh in on the project until 11:59 p.m. on Nov. 9. An online comment form is available here.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Bobwubbena
There is a key unanswered question about the Estuary Project. Who is providing the independent (of the emotional hype that exists around this project) by the local governmental elected body that is assuming full responsibility for the final project, including financing. The Legislature in 2025 issued a Budget Message that the design in 2025 was not feasible and essentially fired the DES and gave the lead role to Ecology. Ecology is now both the designer and the "State/Federal" permitting agency---a conflict of interest position. The current Ecology promoted project cost in 2026 dollars is over $400 million for the "in lake portion" and with the marine water cleanup by the Port and the City for the legacy pollutants in West Bay that are "prerequisites per the ILA" add another $250 million. Add ten years to the construction schedule and our community has a $1.0 billion project to be funded by someone. Do you really think that President Trump will support this project with a $1.0 billion grant? It is good to see elected officials support Ecology and the State Legislature in this funding of a $1.0 billion local project. This is for a design that is removing and replacing a duplicate "Seawater Rise berm of 4 to 5 feet dike around the "existing Capitol Lake Basin and much more". Who is really confirming the cost-benefits of the new design and who is paying the bill??
Friday, October 23 Report this
crviews
It's very hard to believe that this project is going to really get funded by either the state or federal government. We are expecting this kind of spending on an essentially local project when there are so many demands (education, housing, the grid, de-carbonizing, etc.) in the state and DC is drowning in debt. In the meantime, the lake will silt up and become a swamp...suspect that going back to lake dredging may be where we end up.
Saturday, October 24 Report this
HarryBranch
Why not just blow up the dam? Send all those sediments where they were headed. Create soft natural tide flats with a gradient of 1 to 500. Home to benthic organisms like ghost shrimp. Food for gray whales. Because those sediments would find the low spots. The shipping berths and turning basin. This whole process is long on hyperbole and short on science. I wonder why.
Sunday, October 25 Report this
Boatyarddog
HarryBranch, i suspect the Port is Agast that the Marine Terminal is feeling the income pinch in this economy, dredging being a focal point. They continue to ignore the "winds of change" even though decades of Negative earnings Continue unaddressed. Spending more on "good deals" to its infrastructure while Borrowing to do it, with Intrests on loans of all kinds rising. We need to RETIRE the Marine Terminal and let Nature take its course. HARRY IS RIGHT!! It is the Best Long term Conversion for this area.
Sunday, October 25 Report this
Mrwater49
The implication of some of these comments is that leaving the dam in place somehow would be a cheaper way to deal with Capitol Lake and its current (and worsening) problems. Not true. DES and its consultants (with local input) did a complete economic analysis of three options for the dam--(1) continuing to dredge and also somehow deal with water quality violations, invasive species, lack of access or recreational use, increased flooding in downtown Olympia; (2) take down the dam and restore the estuary; or (3) some sort of hybrid that would maintain a basin like the existing lake but also remove the dam. The study concluded that dam removal and estuary restoration was the best alternative economically. In addition, it was the best alternative from environmental, cultural/historical, and flooding/climate change perspectives. It also, incidentally, would help LOTT avoid potentially massive costs from having to meet stringent federal water quality requirements for LOTT's continued discharges into a polluted Budd Inlet (pollution for which Capitol Lake contributes over half). Since 1950 taxpayers have had to pay for routine removal of sediment behind the dam--a cost that should have been borne by those who benefited from the sediment trap created in 1950. Multiple studies and stakeholder groups have concluded that the dam should come out. I like Harry's idea of blowing the dam up, but somehow I think that the responsible federal and state agencies would never issue the necessary permits.
Tuesday, October 27 Report this
TheVirtualOne
This whole project is an absolute abomination. $400 million of taxpayer’s money spent on the project from hell.
Wednesday, October 28 Report this
MamaBear
The Squaxin Tribe really wanted this. They should pay for it. They seem to have a lot of power over what happens in this town like renaming Priest Point Park even though they had nothing to do with preserving the land, preventing development with hotels and strip malls, and making it into a lovely place to hike and play and picnic.
Thursday, October 29 Report this