Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Port of Olympia Commission members criticized the lack of communication with the Washington State Department of Ecology ahead of a vote on a joint resolution regarding the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Project.
Commissioners brought up concerns regarding the timing of the project and where the remediation of Budd Inlet fits within the timeline at a meeting on Monday, Sept. 28.
Commissioners reviewed a nonbinding resolution that conveys the port’s support for Department of Ecology as it pursues state and federal funding for the project.
The resolution also acknowledges management under Department of Ecology, which took over the role from the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services in 2025.
It also expresses formal backing for state and federal funding efforts, as total costs are currently estimated to exceed $400 million, according to Port of Olympia Executive Director Alex Smith.
The initiative involves the removal of 5th Avenue Dam in Olympia, as well as the restoration of 260 acres of estuarine and salt-marsh habitat in South Puget Sound.
Based on a 2022 environmental impact statement, the restoration of the estuary was deemed the best approach for the lake’s long-term management to address chronic water quality violations, sediment accumulation and invasive species.
The Port of Olympia is involved as a member of a 2024 interlocal agreement that details the funding and governance of the project.
The agreement, which includes Thurston County, Olympia, Tumwater and Squaxin Island Tribe, tasks each member with their own responsibilities. It also commits members to fund dredging every 12 years through 2050 to protect Budd Inlet, where water would flow into once the dam has been removed.
The Port Of Olympia's annual payment would begin at $207,000 and rise incrementally to more than $500,000 by 2050. Except for the Squaxin Island Tribe, all other partners have corresponding financial contributions.
Smith said the initial payment would trigger once funding for construction has been secured, which the parties hope to achieve by the end of 2027.
While acknowledging Department of Ecology’s efforts to secure funding, Commissioner Jasmine Vasavada said she was concerned about how the project has recently progressed without much input from Port of Olympia.
She said she has been talking with Smith about working with Department of Ecology and other partners to convene an executive committee to restart conversations.
“I am not very pleased with sort of how little I've heard of what's happening in that group,” Vasavada said.
Commissioners were particularly concerned about the timeline.
Commissioner Joel Hansen pointed out that the final approach for the remediation of Budd Inlet has not been fully designed.
The cleanup is a prerequisite to the removal of 5th Avenue Dam, as the inflow of sediment and water would significantly impact Port of Olympia.
“I feel like we're going to open that dam and get punched in the face,” Hansen said. “Like we're not really sure what's going to happen, and the amount of money we have to deal with it may be insufficient.”
Vasavada asked Smith if Department of Ecology plans to start construction after securing the necessary funding.
Smith said the language of the resolution was ambiguous in that regard.
“Ecology is making the argument that by getting to a certain funding … construction would be inevitable, and so then that will trigger the payments,” Smith said.
Vasavada noted the resolution omits any reference to the remediation project. She said staff brought it up with Department of Ecology, but were told there was enough time to adjust the resolution.
“When our staff brought it up, we were pretty much told, ‘Oh, the ship has sailed. This is already running. It's buttoned down. There's no room for changes,’” Vasavada said.
“I believe the reasoning for that — I would infer — is that you're an agency who's on a timeline to try to get stuff ready for some trip to Congress, right? I think Ecology is doing a great job working with both the feds and our state to get money."
She added, “I do think we need to restore that muscle of how, as local jurisdictions, we lean in, we hear from each other.”
The commission did not decide on the resolution during the meeting. Port of Olympia staff plan to bring it back for further consideration on Oct. 13.
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Honestyandrealityguy
Instituional knowledge is key. Why did this get done in the first place? Pretty basic but what the people had experienced; hence, the way it is today. Common sense please.
Thursday, October 1 Report this
MamaBear
Why won't the Squaxin Island Tribe be required to support this financially. They were the ones pushing really hard for this. They ought to be footing a LOT of the bill.
Thursday, October 1 Report this
MartyKenney
As a relative newcomer to Olympia (2020) I’m really curious how this all came to be. Was it originally going to be $400million? It’s a little surprising that the people of Olympia would want to spend that kind of money on a project that doesn’t seem to have any economic or social benefit. Kinda just feels like a lot of extra work for a smelly tide flat to be uncovered…, but I must be missing something.
Friday, October 2 Report this
MartyKenney
Also, really curious about the meeting location. Seems like a GREAT place to meet, rather than the proposed expensive upgrade the port has in place for their fancy new executive building… when will the government decide to live within their means???
Friday, October 2 Report this
Curious
@mamabear I know right now, they are only fundraising for the "must do" parts of the project (restoration and roadwork), not the fun parts (trails and boats walks), I'm hoping the Squaxin Island Tribe steps in and funds the that portion. My understanding is also that they are taking on some of the maintenance once it's built, but I might be confusing this with another project. Anyway, I figured the port and government came in and messed up the Tribe's land with a dam that was doomed to fail, so it makes sense for them to ask us to clean it up.
Friday, October 2 Report this
Curious
@MartyKenney we don't have a choice: the lake is going to be full of sediment within 10 years and then it will start flooding down town every time it rains. Putting in the dam was not well thought out and now we have to fix the problem we made for ourselves.
Friday, October 2 Report this
Person of Interest
The Port Executive Director has no real
Idea of the cost of the estuary project. In one prior meeting she used a range of between $300 million to $650 million. These swags being used are not helpful and just drive home the fact that in ten years, if the project gets underway, the costs will be substantially higher than any cost projection generated today.
As I understand it Ecology presented this irrationally optimistic resolution to the Port for signature but will not allow any changes to the Resolution. A partner that will not entertain changes to a document is not a partner that has your best interest in mind. Frankly on principle such an approach should be rejected out of hand.
With no real cost estimate available and no ability to modify the resolution or terminate it in the future the Resolution should be rejected out of hand.
If the project in the future could cost the Port $500,000 a year how will the Port pay for the project with the current financials of the Port? This will sink the Port.
Friday, October 2 Report this
Oly1956
This was not good reporting. Vasavada did criticize communication, but it was directed at a fellow Commissioner, not at any outside entities. Hansen was concerned about timelines and the planning, not the communication.
The entire article reads as if the entire commission is upset at the plans, or the group, and that isn't the case. It's just a concern in implementing the plan, which is good governance.
Also to the comment about the port finances: expect increased revenue and reduced costs over the next two years as bonds are paid off.
Friday, October 2 Report this
Bobwubbena
Thank you, Port Commissioners, for raising the "caution flag on Ecology's work".
There are three critical waterfront projects under design---the Ports Ecology ordered "Agreed Order to clean up historical marine water toxics" currently under design with an estimated cost of 200million; The City/Port/LOTT Work Plan for 2027-2028 to design the first phase of the City's Sea Water Rise Response Plan---the cost of this time critical project is still being designed with a $160,000 Work Plan yet to start and probable cost in the many millions to prevent downtown flooding; and then the Ecology designed Estuary Project currently estimated by (???) for over $400 million at the early 60% design level for only a portion of the project.
The Agreed Order and the Sea Water Rise Response are NON-NEGOTIABLE to be funded projects. The Estuary Project is a "nice to have if we can afford it"--or maybe an alternative Percival Creek Estuary at probable only 10% of the Deschutes Design by Ecology. Ecology is the project designer & regulator, and the local taxpayers are the funders----WHO IS REALLY I CHARGE of these three interrelated waterfront projects that most likely cost in excess of $1.0 billion.
Local Government Elected Officials from Olympia, Tumwater, Thurston County, LOTT and the Port---Please SOMEONE TAKE CHARGE of this confused messaging and share it with the electors for the next election. It should not be Ecology--or as the State Legislators said in their Budget message ---not DES.
Friday, October 2 Report this
SilenceD
On the issue of the Squaxin Tribe contributing financially to this project, they obtained a $5.6 million grant for salmon habitat recovery that is helping fund the design and permitting work, which I consider generous: I doubt they approved when the estuary was dammed to create Capitol Lake in the first place, so this really isn't their problem to solve.
More generally, the Port's anxiety about the process for moving this project forward is understandable. The 5th Avenue Dam has been blocking sediment from entering Budd Inlet for decades, and the Port would have had to dredge Budd Inlet more regularly (at significant expense) if the dam wasn't there. If the sediment isn't remediated before dam removal, or isn't fully remediated in a way that makes sense for the Port, the bill for sediment dredging will finally come due, and the Port may then be in conflict with Ecology and their partners to the Inter-Local Agreement on how to address it.
If the Port feels like their concerns are falling on deaf ears at Ecology, there are any number of ways the Port can share those concerns. But I read the (non-binding) joint resolution, and it seems fairly anodyne. I'd be more concerned with whether it will actually persuade anybody to help fund the project.
Saturday, October 3 Report this
JW
Is dredging the lake not an option? Have we been building up a time bomb of sediment for decades?
Saturday, October 3 Report this
OlyDreamer
Dredging which was ignored by the state government and will still need to be accomplished more often now. Years of commerce and recreation has been built in Budd Bay. A large part of the Port's revenue which funds many of the Budd Bay projects is dependent on the dredging. If not accomplished, then the commerce & revenue will not exist to accomplish these projects. Thus the can is kicked down the road and Budd Bay would become the new swamp. The state did this and ignored their promise. What makes anyone think they'll change? All so they can "feel good" about kicking the can to someone else.
Monday, October 5 Report this