It was pretty insane around here. I'll get some photos of the flooding on my site soon.

Yes, those are all very goodpieces of advice, but I think we also have to accept that sometimes it's just going to happen. It wasn't just the rainstorm we had. Several days before we'd had a LOT of snow throughout Washington (not sure exactly how far it extended) and the dramatic increase in temperature as the clouds moved in and sealed in heat caused much of it to melt. That combined with the heavy rains and already saturated ground from the pre-snow wetness just combined for horrible conditions.

Yes, the effect on our communities could be lessened through paying heed to the things mentioned, but sometimes it's just gonna happen no matter what we do to try and divert nature. Isn't it strange how we protect it when it's "nice" to us, but try to control/stop it's natural cycle when it threatens us?

A little criticism for both sides: it's never just one thing or another. It's a whole set of factors and conditions that need to be considered. Rarely ever is something just because of global warming or environmental irresponsibility OR just because of nature itself (i'm not trying to say it is). For the sake of fairness, look at both sides.

The town of Oakville was flooded greater this time than 1996--right on time for the usual 11-year La Nina cycle.
The S.E. portion of this town has always been flood-prone, yet developers were allowed to build homes with little or no provision for floods; worse, some unscrupulous sellers told buyers "you don't need flood insurance--it never floods!".
If buyers checked insurance records, or City or County, they would have known it flooded.
If buyers are considering property in a locale they are not familiar with, do some research first!
Sure, it is charming by waterways--in dry weather!
Sure, locals will tell you "floods never topped over that slough back there".
But, if it is in a river basin area comprised of river gravel [aka, "pit-run"], you can bet the whole area is flood plain!
Look for historical records--some are very hard to find: I saw one old photo showing the whole town of Oakville has flooded worse-- back in about 1930 or 1920, due to an ice-dam breaking during a torrential rain---even old-timers cannot remember it unless prodded [virtually none remember any wildfires scorching the area, either--I found some evidence, and a few sort of remembered].
There are virtually no records until modern excavations, showing Centralia got flooded about 30' deep up the mountains there, in 1700, due to a mega-tsunami--which would mean Oakville would have been under about 40' or more of water!

Human condition is to forget the severity of trauma rapidly as soon as things return to near-normal.
And, it is very hard to observe dry land and tell where will flood and where will not--floods can be a bit capricious, as can wildfires.
One can only work as best they can to build the best precautions as possible, as in-sinc with nature as possible.
Below are comments on advisories listed as "what we should do" on the web page.
Generally, these make sense---in drier regions!
But in our region, they do NOT necessarily make sense--they are so simplistic, they can cause worse damages if taken "as-is" [which Washington DC has done in the past].
Please consider:

1. "Protect wetlands, forests and stream-side vegetation --- Wetlands and natural vegetation help absorb floodwaters and can serve as barriers between floodwaters and homes. Wetlands also help filter pollution and give us clean water."
Most of S.W. WA is not paved--we have relatively low percentage of paved areas. Most driveways, for instance, are gravel; many country roads are still gravel, or have been lightly paved. Wetlands are predominantly "natural" except where developments have been allowed to build up raised pads to put buildings on, displacing large areas of flood basin, forcing flood waters to find other routes. It is also common for clear-cutting to strip vegetation from watersheds and waterways, as they get to the trees. NO entities appear to be changing these patterns.

2. "Manage storm water naturally --- Run-off from roads should be allowed to seep back into the ground, so it doesn’t overwhelm drains and sewers. Not only can this help reduce local flooding, it also recharges underground aquifers."
It would be great to allow runoff to seep into the ground naturally--except we get such enormous amounts, it is impossible to let it do anything but run off to lower elevations--the ground gets super-saturated.
Those cute little storm catchments engineered into developments cannot even come close to managing this amount of water. This amount and greater happens on approximately 11 year cycles.
There is no way that amount of water can soak into the ground to replenish water tables--water tables are generally fairly shallow, to begin with.
"Allowing rain water to soak in on site" only works in regions with relatively less rain water over the course of a season. We might even be better off to dredge out a couple ancillary, protected dry riverbeds to handle torrential floods, similar to the L.A. basin in CA.

3." Stop building in floodplains -- Keep new development out of floodplains and, where possible, move existing homes out of harm’s way. Parks and natural areas enhance community access to river recreation, and provide habitat for birds, fish and wildlife."
If S.W. WA "avoided building in a flood plain", there would be NO building; several cities would need to be moved [including, possibly, large portions of Olympia!], there would then be no cities on any coastal locations, no towns around bays and river mouths, and farms would have to be moved to the hillsides. Are large logging-corporate holders of vast tracts of hills willing to give up their tree-farming, to give that land to dairy farmers, crop farmers, etc. , or at least share it with those displaced from lowland locations?
This entire region is floodplain/drainage area.
Rivers allowed to go UN-dredged get shallower, spreading flooding far and wide, causing rivers to change their beds frequently.
Salmon runs could actually be enhanced if rivers got dredged in their off-season--this has been proven elsewhere.
BUILDINGS could be designed and built to avoid much damage, by increasing height of "porous" foundations, or doing as builders in the Netherlands have started doing: build houses on pontoons, tethered to utilities and on tall poles, allowing houses to float up during the flood, and settle right back to original spot after--no damage.
Roads could be built to some of the better European standards, instead of the substandard road building that has been perpetrated here the last 20 years or so.

"These three steps not only provide flood protection, they also deliver many of other benefits – clean water, recreation, wildlife and quality-of-life – that our communities enjoy.
Embracing natural flood protection will strengthen the resiliency of our communities in the face of global warming, and will allow us to pass on a legacy of healthy rivers to the next generation."
These three steps GENERALLY apply to solve water issues--they DO NOT manage huge amounts of water in a normally wetter region or in a region that is normally a major regional drainage plain.
I completely agree we need to manage resources far better than what has been done, or there will be poor legacy to leave posterity!
We desperately need to learn to work WITH nature, instead of trying to control and change it--
In working with nature, we must observe indigenous cultures that learned how to build and blend far better for thousands of years, in many cases, than modern cultures ever have.

Stay dry, prepared, and warm!
Chi