Abstract
Sumas Lake (Xhotsa), located in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada, was the heart of Semá:th Nation Territory and the epicenter of a complex Indigenous food system. For the Semá:th people, the lake represented life and livelihood. In 1924, the lake was stolen and drained in an instance of land theft that occurred during a nationwide campaign of land dispossession and genocide, decimating an ecology that supported a rich and diverse Indigenous food system and replacing it with a settler food system. A century later, in November 2021 climate change induced flooding caused the lake to return, resulting in the evacuation of thousands of people and causing millions in damages to homes and infrastructure. Since the flood, the response has been a continuation of the status quo to protect settler agricultural lands via increased investment in hard structures that control the flow of water based on assumptions of the predictability of future flow conditions. We offer a missing narrative by bringing together an analysis of Indigenous laws and oral tradition with an assessment of the economic costs of “managed retreat”, defined as the purposeful relocation of people and infrastructure out of harm’s way. We find that the cost of buying out properties in the lakebed and allowing the lake to return is close to half the cost ($1 billion) of maintaining the status quo ($2.4 billion), while facilitating climate adaptation, and restoration of a floodplain ecosystem that supported thriving populations of people, salmon, sturgeon, ducks, and food and medicinal plants– including many species which are now endangered. Returning Sumas Lake by centering ‘Water Back’ as a climate resiliency solution, enacts both food systems and ecological reconciliation, addressing the harms caused by the loss of the lake to the Semá:th People that is still felt to this day. In a time when climate change induced flooding is predicted to increase, this study demonstrates how the inclusion of Indigenous laws and knowledges are critical to the development of solutions toward a more sustainable and just future.
1 Introduction
In Canada, genocidal colonial policies have robbed Indigenous Peoples of their lives, lands, laws, language, food systems and systems of governance (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Despite acknowledgement of these atrocities and steps toward reconciliation and justice, both the legacies and continuation of colonial policies have negative impacts on Indigenous Peoples. One hundred and fifty years of colonial governance and management are evident across the stolen lands and waters of so-called Canada, where unsustainable development, resource extraction, and climate change have led to unprecedented environmental degradation (WWF, 2017; Westwood et al., 2019). Rivers being dammed, valleys flooded, lakes polluted, and grasslands and forests stripped of their diversity, all represent the loss and erasure of Indigenous food systems that once supported the food, social, ceremonial and technological needs of Indigenous communities (; Turner, 2020; ). Species extinction and endangerment are at record highs, while major climate events causing catastrophic fires, droughts, and floods are increasing in frequency (WWF, 2018; ). The current state of Canada’s environment is the legacy of colonial land and resource management driven by an illusion of limitless resources (), and the settler-colonial experiment meant to conquer, tame, and exploit lands and waters stolen from the Indigenous Peoples who, in contrast, sustainably managed the land and waters for thousands of years. One such example was the settler-colonial government’s decision to drain and convert Sumas Lake (Xhotsa means lake) from an Indigenous food system to an agrarian-style food system for white settlers (Reimer, 2018).
On November 16, 2021, an extreme rainfall event led to catastrophic flooding throughout the lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia (BC), Canada and Washington State (WA), United States (Figures 1, 2). Two-day gauge precipitation totals reached 400 mm north of the Fraser Valley, the fourth highest value since 1955 (). Resulting high water levels in the Sumas and Nooksack River watersheds lead to the evacuation of over 3,000 people in Abbotsford, BC, and over 500 in Whatcom County, WA. The flood resulted in over 670,000 livestock deaths, contamination of fish-bearing waters, and millions in damages (Figure 1). It is estimated that this precipitation event was made 60% more likely due to climate change (). Farms, homes, businesses, and transportation corridors flooded (Figure 1). Many of those affected by the flooding, learned for the first time that their homes and farms were located on a former lakebed—Sumas Lake. For the Semá:th People, the return of the lake was expected.
Figure 1
Figure 2

The former Sumas Lake located in the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia. The flooding of Sumas Lake would change which properties are currently protected by dikes. Our analysis is divided into five regions whose properties would become vulnerable to flooding without further alterations to the diking infrastructure.
In the Fraser River Basin, climate change forecasts reveal increases in cold season rainfall will lead to unprecedented winter peak flows and increased runoff variability, ultimately increasing flood risk (
In the lower Fraser River, these heavy rainfall events are colliding with a history of intensive floodplain development that has relied on engineering of hard structures to control the flow of water. The technological advancements of the 20th century facilitated the channelization of rivers and construction of dikes that characterize a strategy of “flood defense” (Zevenbergen et al., 2013). Often implemented in an ad hoc or post hoc fashion, flood defense is increasingly meeting its limits as incorrect design assumptions, inadequate funding, and poor maintenance are magnified by a changing future climate (Zevenbergen et al., 2013; van Herk et al., 2015). Despite these challenges, the approach to managing floods can be slow to change where historically contingent events precipitate institutional patterns that are linked over time, resulting in the avoidance of viable alternatives in favor of strategies that were employed in the past (Wilson, 2014). This process often referred to as “path dependency” relies on deeply held assumptions that are recognized as common knowledge which then guides the conceptual framing of adaptation measures (Preston et al., 2015; Parsons et al., 2019). A decline in community resilience has been linked to an unwillingness to change in the face of new problems (Scheffer et al., 2003; Wilson, 2014). Climate change represents a wider range of variability to contend with moving into the future and requires a wider range of alternatives be considered (Scheffer et al., 2003).
As communities, politicians, and planners grapple with how to move forward in the wake of the Sumas flooding event, and what it signals for the future, we offer insight as a multidisciplinary group of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, lawyers, and land stewards grounding our analysis in two-eyed seeing. Using the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing through one eye, and the strengths of Western ways of knowing in the other, two eyed seeing brings these worldviews together to answer the questions of what we should do, what our responsibilities are, and how we should live while on Earth (
Our analysis is not intended to represent a complete account of the cost and benefit of reclaiming and revitalizing the lake, or continuing to invest in protecting the prairie. Rather, it illustrates how the option of reclaiming and revitalizing the lake is within the realm of economic costs associated with maintaining the status quo and presents a missing narrative. In this time of climate and biodiversity crisis (Ray et al., 2021), and commitment to upholding the rights of Indigenous People’s (
1.1 Sumas Lake history
Located between Sumas Mountain and Vedder Mountain in the Lower Fraser Valley (Figures 3, 4), British Columbia, Canada, Sumas Lake was home to an extraordinary abundance of animal and plant life that supported a rich Indigenous food system (Reimer, 2018). The lake was the center of a dynamic floodplain landscape; over the course of a year it could vary from an area of 9,000 acres (3,642 ha) and a depth of 3 meters in the winter, to an area of 26,000 acres (10,522 ha) and depth of 11 meters in the spring (
Figure 3

Panorama of Sumas Lake taken by Leonard Frank, pre-1922, accessible from Vancouver Public Library’s photograph repository; photographs taken before 1924 are in the public domain.
Figure 4

Map of the lower Fraser Valley from 1876. Sumas Lake is the large body of water on the eastern end of the valley (
Sumas wetlands connected migratory shorebirds and their breeding grounds across continents. Fields of blue grass in the silty soils surrounding the lake attracted birds of prey along with flocks of ducks, tundra swans, great blue herons, greater white-fronted and cackling geese (Reimer, 2018). The waters themselves were home to multiple species of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and its sandy banks supported rich sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) spawning grounds. Wild hazelnuts (Corylus cornuta), roses (Rosa spp.) and strawberries (Fragaria spp.) lined its shores (Reimer, 2018). For the Peoples of the Lower Fraser, the Fraser River is known as the Stó:lō and considered the ‘river of all rivers’ connecting the waters and peoples to each other (
“My grandpa used to say, that in the Coast Salish Territory, Semá:th was the central location where the people used to gather. The people gathered in the summertime as we had Semá:th Lake that once offered every species of fish right there at the front of our village and in the wintertime, people gathered there from all parts of the Coast Salish Nation for the winter ceremonies, and I hope sometime in the future that we can re-establish Semá:th as a central place amongst the Coast Salish.” ~ Chief Dalton Silver (
“At Sumas we caught them [ducks] by the thousands … [There were so many] at Sumas it used to turn black … when they drained it out, after months of drying out they went and ploughed it, Sturgeons were getting ploughed up, 10, 12 even 14-foot sturgeon that were still alive when they were ploughing the land.” ~ Luschiim (Luschiim Arvid Charlie) (
The draining of Sumas Lake was one act in a Canada-wide process of land dispossession and genocide carried out by colonial governments on Indigenous Peoples across Canada. Land governed and stewarded by Indigenous People for millennia was stolen and given to settlers or retained by the crown and used for resource extraction (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).
The formal process of land dispossession for the Semá:th and other Peoples of the lower Fraser began in earnest in 1858 with the discovery of gold in the Fraser Valley (Tennant, 1990; Reimer, 2018). Due to the cost of surveys to the colonial government, a pre-emption system was established to encourage occupation of British Columbia by Canadian and British subjects, it afforded settlers the right to 160 acres (65 ha) on the condition that they occupy and establish European-style agriculture, plots would then be surveyed and purchased for a maximum of ten shillings per acre at a later date (
“This is [our] land, and that is what the old people know and used to say … The old people used to say that the White people will be shoving you around all over this open prairie to get our food … When I first came up to be a grown boy myself, they fixed up this place and surveyed it for us people. They owned it, and that is what is worrying me all this time, because I am always poor. I don’t get satisfactory food for my children to eat.” (Reimer, 2018)
By the 1920s plans were afoot to drain Sumas Lake to create more farmland for settlers (Figure 5). By 1924 the Chilliwack River had been diverted west into the newly formed Vedder Canal and soon after the lake was drained through the Sumas Drainage Canal and into the Fraser River around the northeastern tip of the Sumas Mountain (Reimer, 2018). The project took many years and entailed massive cost overruns, quickly becoming a financial disaster and an ongoing source of controversy (
Figure 5

Pamphlet developed to promote the sale of ‘reclaimed’ lands following the draining of Sumas Lake. Interpretative kiosk - Yarrow Pioneer Park.
2 Methods
2.1 Laws and oral traditions of the Peoples of the Lower Fraser
We drew on the laws and oral traditions of the Peoples of the Lower Fraser as they pertain to fisheries governance and watershed management through a review of the outputs of a collaboration between West Coast Environmental Law and the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance to Revitalize Indigenous Law for Land and Water (RELAW) (
“History tells us stories about our territory and us being a part of it.” (
2.2 Recovery scenario analysis
Four alternative ‘recovery strategies’ to the 2021 floods have been proposed (Table 1). These strategies were developed by a contracted external engineering firm by the City of Abbotsford to develop flood mitigation options for the Sumas Prairie. The proposed options were guided by principals that included the maintenance of agricultural capacity that was created by the draining of the lake and the maintenance or improvement of existing flood protection (
Table 1
| Scenario | Strategy | Cost (CAD) |
|---|---|---|
| Status Quo – Sumas Prairie | Option 1. Status quo with enhancements to Barrowtown pump station | 209,000,000 |
| Option 2. Status Quo with enhancements to Barrowtown Pump Station and a new Sumas River pump station | 909,000,000 | |
| Option 3. Added floodway and storage area, enhancements to Barrowtown Pump Station and a new Sumas River pump station | 2,109,000,000 | |
| Option 4. Added narrow floodway, enhancements to Barrowtown Pump Station and a new Sumas River pump station “and more” | 2,409,000,000 | |
| *Managed Retreat - Buying properties located in the lakebed | Total value of land and structures within the historical foot print of Sumas Lake | 956,395,347 |
Comparison of cost estimates of four future pathways proposed by the City of Abbotsford to a scenario of managed retreat, for the Sumas Lake Region.
* For detailed breakdown of cost by region see Supplementary Table S3.
We assessed the potential cost of reclaiming and revitalizing Sumas Lake through managed retreat utilizing a spatial analysis of the assessed values of the properties currently within the historic lakebed boundary. Data describing the assessed structure and land values were obtained from BC Assessments (
3 Results
3.1 Laws of the Xhotsa (lake)
Although established processes may have been disrupted by colonization, the peoples of the Lower Fraser continue to practice and revitalize their laws. The legal processes shown in the sxwōxwiyám/s ̌xʷə ̌ xʷəyém (‘stories of the distant past’ or ‘tell stories’) are being used today for exercising jurisdiction and decision-making authority. We identified how legal processes practiced by the Peoples of the Lower Fraser can inform the current response to climate disasters along two broad themes.
3.1.1 Identifying standards for stewardship
Indigenous jurisdiction is based on ties to ancestry and language that trace back to eternal ancestors (
Today, when jurisdiction is not respected and Indigenous Knowledge is excluded from land use decisions, negative consequences flow to various relationships and aspects of life (
3.1.2 Protocol for responding to crisis
There are laws of the Peoples of the Lower Fraser that rest on stories of how the water brings the people together (
The response to crises over millennia by the Peoples of the Lower Fraser has been guided by instruction from people with necessary expertise. Great floods have happened in the Lower Fraser historically as shown in the sxwōxwiyám/sx̌ʷəx̌ʷəyém, the way in which the floods were overcome were through hard lessons and collaboratively working together: S’iwes Toti:lt Q’ep/syə́θəstəl̕ ʔəy səlí̕ q̓ tátələ̕ t ‘teaching and learning together’ (
3.2 Recovery scenario costs
The City of Abbotsford has proposed four flood recovery options that range from $200 million to $2.4 billion each, with the cheaper options focusing on upgrading the pump system, which keeps the lake from returning, and the most expensive including a narrow floodway for excess water (
Based on the 2020 Assessed Land values for BC, our estimate of managed retreat through the acquisition of properties across five regions likely to be impacted by the return of the lake (Figure 2) total approximately $956 million (Table 1). In addition to acquisition costs there are other economic factors to consider. Depending on the scale of managed retreat, the construction of new dike infrastructure may be required. Other costs including planning, communication, cleanup of infrastructure and decontamination are also important considerations. A systematic review of floodplain buyouts carried out in the US found that transaction costs typically make up about 80% of the total project costs, although consistent budgetary data is lacking (
4 Discussion
As decision makers and Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities reconcile how to move forward in the face of extraordinary recovery costs and uncertainty following the catastrophic flooding of Sumas Prairie, we offer a missing narrative through the comparison of recovery options proposed by local government with a scenario of managed retreat that would allow Sumas Lake to return. Our analysis is grounded in two-eyed seeing, bringing together Indigenous Knowledge with western science, to contrast two alternative futures for the Sumas region. Our analysis reveals that both pathways will incur significant costs, yet it may be twice as expensive to support the status quo by retaining the lakebed as farmland, than to pivot and undertake a process of lake reclamation and revitalization via managed retreat.
4.1 Challenges for the status quo
In Canada and elsewhere, the building of dikes and levees to protect communities from flooding and sea level rise has been the dominant practice (Zevenbergen et al., 2013; Oulahen, 2015; Winsemius et al., 2016;
Despite the existence of an economically viable alternative that carries additional potential benefits for endangered species, and climate adaptation, the option of returning the lake has not been suggested as an alternative by local government. This can be an indication that current processes for responding to crises are caught in a pattern of path dependence, which can lead to the deterioration of community resilience over time (Wilson, 2014). Many of the homes and businesses located within the Sumas lakebed are considered repetitive loss properties (RLPs) — properties that have flooded and received insurance claim payments multiple times. Property owners face an uncertain future, many of which were uninsured prior to the recent flood, and others unable to get insurance moving forward (Zussman, 2021). In 2015, an assessment of the dikes protecting the lakebed revealed them to be inadequate (
Transboundary considerations complicate the situation further. Mitigating flows from the Nooksack River in Washington State creates a variety of physical and political challenges. The current dikes protecting the Sumas Lake bottom create multiple sumps where flood waters from the Nooksack lead to flooding issues on the opposite side of the diking system in the prairie south of the lake (Figure 6). These areas are openly acknowledged as a ‘floodway’ in the US and are labeled as ‘unprotected floodplain’ in the City of Abbotsford flood protection scenarios (
Figure 6

LiDAR derived digital elevation model for the Sumas Lake and Nooksack River floodplain. Arrows indicate the usual direction of flow for the Sumas and Nooksack River. When the Nooksack River floods, it temporarily joins the flow of the Sumas River and Johnson Creek, sending flood waters toward historic Sumas Lake.
4.2 Recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction
We argue that it is time for Indigenous voices to contribute to shaping a new paradigm of flood management in the lower Fraser. This new paradigm acknowledges the crimes of stolen lands and waters from the Semá:th People and other Peoples of the Lower Fraser. The principles for a new paradigm are directly reflected in the laws of the Peoples of the Lower Fraser. There are stories of how the water brought different Nations together in order to share responsibility in managing the resources it provides. There are stories of how the proper response to crises involves bringing all those affected along with those who have necessary expertise to engage in a process of S’iwes Toti:lt Q’ep/syə́θəstəl̕ ʔəy səlí̕ q̓ tátələ̕ t (‘teaching and learning together’).
Water Back, or in this case ‘Lake Back’, through managed retreat can be part of an integrated and inclusive approach to managing flood risks when undertaken in the context of flood risk assessment, long term planning and community dialogue. For example, in Grand Forks, BC, following major flood events in 2017 and 2018, the local government is using funding from Infrastructure Canada’s Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund to help buy out and relocate or demolish more than 70 houses and buildings in the floodplain, restore natural floodplain habitat, and realign and upgrade dikes. The decision was taken after public consultation, and understanding that long term costs of flooding could otherwise be three times the cost of the mitigation measures (
Buying back land is nothing new in Canada. BC Hydro spent more than $20 million to buy up Peace Valley properties for the Site C hydro dam in the years prior to official project approval (
In a time when transformational change is needed to safeguard communities in a changing climate, stem the loss of biodiversity and support reconciliation through the implementation of United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the absence of a discussion around restoring and revitalizing the lake is an oversight. Managed retreat offers a more adaptive regime for floodplain management than the narrowly defined flood defense strategies under consideration. It also presents legal, logistical, ethical, political, financial, and architectural challenges that need to be addressed by decision makers, as well as rights and title holders (
4.3 Considering the future
We did not comprehensively analyze the value of a future with or without the return of Sumas Lake. The history of the region as a dynamic floodplain system means the current landscape of the Lower Fraser Valley includes some of the most fertile agricultural land in Canada. As a result, the prairie is particularly suitable for vegetable production like carrots and potatoes. The Sumas Prairie provides nearly all the vegetable production in the City of Abbotsford, including over half the potatoes grown throughout the entire Lower Fraser Valley, as well as substantial dairy, chicken and egg production (
There have been a range of studies which have illustrated challenges associated with the over-reliance on cost-benefit analysis for determining where managed retreat should take place (Tubridy et al., 2022). The relative lack of maintenance costs associated with managed retreat means that time scale, discount rates, and our ability to predict future conditions all have a large impact on our understanding of the costs and benefits involved (
The examination of land values alone, demonstrates the economic feasibility of returning Sumas Lake relative to the other alternatives under examination (Table 1) and illustrates how path dependency is operating in the region to frame solutions within a confined conceptual paradigm of flood defense, a strategy that will be increasingly difficult to uphold under a rapidly changing climate and hydrological regime (
5 Conclusion
British Columbia has committed to the implementation of UNDRIP through Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) (
Statements
Data availability statement
The data analyzed in this study is subject to the following licenses/restrictions: Data on land and structure valuation was created by BC Assessments and accessed through research agreements with UBC Library. Access to this data is restricted to researchers affiliated with UBC who agree to the defined terms of use, and must only be used for non-profit academic research purposes. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to https://abacus.library.ubc.ca/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:11272.1/AB2/LAPUAB.
Author contributions
RF: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Visualization. MN-K: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. LB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IH: Validation, Writing – review & editing. JK: Validation, Writing – review & editing. RS-H: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Our research was supported by funding from the Liber Ero Chair in Conservation and would not have been possible without the support of the Bullitt Foundation and the Vancouver Foundation which has helped facilitate the working group discussions between the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, West Coast Environmental Law, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, and the Conservation Decisions Lab.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the UBC Library for facilitating access to BC Assessments data describing land and structure valuation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1380083/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1.^Throughout the text we reference the Indigenous names for terms related to the legal histories interpreted through the RELAW program. Two dialects of the language of the Peoples of the Lower Fraser are provided: Upriver Halq’eméylem / Downriver Hən̓q̓əmin̓əm.
References
1
ArmstrongC. G.LyonsN.McAlvayA. C.RitchieP. M.LepofskyD.BlakeM. (2023). Historical ecology of forest garden management in Laxyuubm Ts’msyen and beyond. Ecosyst. People19, 2160823. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2160823
2
BakerR. (2023). Saving the Cowichan Estuary from drowning in a climate-fed ‘coastal squeeze.’ (Vancouver, BC, CA: Canada’s National Observer).
3
BarkR. H.Martin-OrtegaJ.WaylenK. A. (2021). Stakeholders’ views on natural flood management: Implications for the nature-based solutions paradigm shift? Environ. Sci. Policy115, 91–98. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.018
4
BC Assessment (2024) BC Assessment - Independent, uniform and efficient property assessment (BC Assessment). Available online at: https://www.bcassessment.ca/ (Accessed 3.13.24).
5
BellrichardC. (2019) Hundreds of landowners still haven’t signed agreements with Trans Mountain | CBC News (CBC). Available online at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/hundreds-of-landowners-still-haven-t-signed-agreements-with-trans-mountain-for-pipeline-expansion-1.5213478 (Accessed 1.23.24).
6
BoyleC. A. (1997). Changes in land cover and subsequent effects on lower fraser basin ecosystems from 1827 to 1990. Environ. Manage.21, 185–196. doi: 10.1007/s002679900017
7
British Columbia (2019). Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples act. Available at: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19044.
8
British Columbia Department of Lands and Works (1876) Map of new westminster district, B.C - city of vancouver archives (Vancouver Archives). Available online at: https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/map-of-new-westminster-district-b-c-hon-forbes-g-vernon-chief-com-lands-works (Accessed 10.7.22).
9
BushE.LemmenD. S. (Eds). (2019). Canada’s changing climate report. Ottawa, ON, CA: Government of Canada. pp. 444. Available at: https://changingclimate.ca/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/CCCR_FULLREPORT-EN-FINAL.pdf.
10
CareyJ. (2020). Core Concept: Managed retreat increasingly seen as necessary in response to climate change’s fury. PNAS117, 13182–13185. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008198117
11
City of Abbotsford (2018). Drainage master plan 2018 (Abbotsford, B.C: City of Abbotsford).
12
City of Abbotsford (2022). Abbotsford committee of the whole meeting. Available at: https://abbotsford.civicweb.net/document/56889/.
13
City of Abbotsford (2023). Disaster mitigation and adaptation fund application – sumas watershed flood mitigation - urgent works (Abbotsford, B.C: City of Abbotsford). Available at: https://abbotsford.civicweb.net/document/57426/.
14
Commemorating Yeyumnuts (2018) Luschiim - full interview. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_PH5_PCtIo (Accessed 10.5.22).
15
CoxS. (2018). Breaching the peace: the Site C Dam and a valley’s stand against big hydro (Vancouver, Canada: On Point Press). doi: 10.59962/9780774890274
16
Curran-GroomeW.HaygoodH.HinoM.BenDorT. K.SalvesenD. (2021). Assessing the full costs of floodplain buyouts. Climatic Change168, 3. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03178-x
17
CurryC. L.IslamS. U.ZwiersF. W.DéryS. J. (2019). Atmospheric rivers increase future flood risk in western Canada’s largest pacific river. Geophysical Res. Lett.46, 1651–1661. doi: 10.1029/2018GL080720
18
DavenportF. V.BurkeM.DiffenbaughN. S. (2021). Contribution of historical precipitation change to US flood damages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2017524118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2017524118
19
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2021). Grand-forks-BC-case-study-oct-22-2021-EN.pdf (Ottawa, ON, CA: Environment and Climate Change Canada).
20
FinnR. J.R.ChalifourL.GergelS. E.HinchS. G.ScottD. C.. (2021). Quantifying lost and inaccessible habitat for pacific salmon in Canada’s Lower Fraser river. Ecosphere12 (7), e03646. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3646
21
GillettN. P.CannonA. J.MalininaE.SchnorbusM.AnslowF.SunQ.et al. (2022). Human influence on the 2021 British Columbia floods. Weather Climate Extremes36, 100441. doi: 10.1016/j.wace.2022.100441
22
Global News (2021) B.C. floods: Photos and videos show roads washed away, cars submerged, debris everywhere | Globalnews.ca (Global News). Available online at: https://globalnews.ca/news/8375787/b-c-floods-photos-videos-roads-washed-away-cars-submerged-debris/ (Accessed 10.9.22).
23
GrenzJ. B. (2020). Healing the Land by Reclaiming an Indigenous Ecology: A journey exploring the application of the Indigenous worldview to invasion biology and ecology (Vancouver, BC, CA: University of British Columbia).
24
GrenzJ.ArmstrongC. G. (2023). Pop-up restoration in colonial contexts: applying an indigenous food systems lens to ecological restoration. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems7. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1244790
25
GrenzJ.ClementsD. R. (2023). “Water, wind, and fire: extreme climate events enhance the spread of invasive plants in sensitive North American ecosystems,” in Plant invasions and global climate change. Eds. TripathiS.BhadouriaR.SrivastavaP.SinghR.BatishD. R. (Vancouver, BC, CA: Springer Nature, Singapore), 113–137. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5910-5_6
26
HinoM.FieldC. B.MachK. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nat. Clim Change7, 364–370. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3252
27
IslamS. U.CurryC. L.DéryS. J.ZwiersF. W. (2019). Quantifying projected changes in runoff variability and flow regimes of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Hydrology Earth System Sci.23, 811–828. doi: 10.5194/hess-23-811-2019
28
KehoeL. J.LundJ.ChalifourL.AsadianY.BalkeE.BoydS.et al. (2020). Conservation in heavily urbanized biodiverse regions requires urgent management action and attention to governance. Conservation Science and Practice3 (2), e310. doi: 10.1111/csp2.310
29
KennedyG. (2021). What is underneath all that water on Sumas Prairie? (Abbotsford, BC, CA: Fraser Valley Current).
30
KWL (2020). Nooksack river overflow flood mitigation plan (Abbotsford, B.C: City of Abbotsford).
31
LeonardK.David-ChavezD.SmilesD.JenningsL.ʻAnolani AlegadoR.ManitowabiJ.et al. (2023). Water back: A review centering rematriation and indigenous water research sovereignty16, 374–428.
32
LFFA (2021a). Revitalizing indigenous law with the lower fraser fisheries alliance: legal traditions of the peoples of the lower fraser summary report (Abbotsford, BC, CA: Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, West Coast Environmental Law).
33
LFFA (2021b). Legal traditions of the peoples of the lower fraser volume 1 foundational principles (Abbotsford, BC, CA: Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, West Coast Environmental Law).
34
MarshallM.MarshallA.BartlettC. (2015). “Two-eyed seeing in medicine,” in Determinants of indigenous peoples’ Health in Canada. Eds. GreenwoodM.LeeuwS. D.LindsayN. M.ReadingC. (Canadian Scholars’ Press, Toronto, ON), 16–24.
35
Martinez-AlierJ.MundaG.O’NeillJ. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecol. Economics26, 277–286. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1
36
MathewsD. L.TurnerN. J. (2017). “Chapter 9 - ocean cultures: northwest coast ecosystems and indigenous management systems,” in Conservation for the anthropocene ocean. Eds. LevinP. S.PoeM. R. (Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press), 169–206. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00009-X
37
MikkelsenP. (1950). Land settlement policy on the mainland of British Columbia 1858 - 1874 (Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia).
38
MorrisonA.NobleB. F.WestbrookC. J. (2018). Flood risk management in the Canadian Prairie Provinces: Defaulting towards flood resistance and recovery versus resilience. Can. Water Resour. J. / Rev. Can. Des. ressources hydriques43, 33–46. doi: 10.1080/07011784.2018.1428501
39
MurtonJ. (2008). Creating order: the liberals, the landowners, and the draining of sumas lake, British Columbia. Enviro Hist Durh N C13, 92–125. doi: 10.1093/envhis/13.1.92
40
NorthM. E. A.TevershamJ. M. (1984). The vegetation of the floodplains of the Lower Fraser, Serpentine and Nicomekl Rivers 1859 to 1890. Syesis17, 47–66.
41
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (2015). Lower mainland dike assessment final report (Surrey, B.C: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations).
42
OlsenT. (2019). Two decades of flood planning useless without money, Abbotsford mayor says (Agassiz, BC, CA: Agassiz Harrison Observer).
43
OlsenT. (2022). Why stopping Sumas Prairie from flooding is ‘not politically feasible.’ (Fraser Valley Current).
44
OulahenG. (2015). Flood insurance in Canada: implications for flood management and residential vulnerability to flood hazards. Environ. Manage.55, 603–615. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0416-6
45
ParsonsM.NalauJ.FisherK.BrownC. (2019). Disrupting path dependency: Making room for Indigenous knowledge in river management. Global Environ. Change56, 95–113. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.008
46
PrestonB. L.MustelinJ.MaloneyM. C. (2015). Climate adaptation heuristics and the science/policy divide. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change20, 467–497. doi: 10.1007/s11027-013-9503-x
47
RayJ. C.GrimmJ.OliveA. (2021). The biodiversity crisis in Canada: failures and challenges of federal and sub-national strategic and legal frameworks. FACETS6, 1044–1068. doi: 10.1139/facets-2020-0075
48
ReimerC. (2018). Before we lost the lake: A natural history of sumas valley (Halfmoon Bay, B.C: Caitlin Press).
49
RoseD.BellD.CrookD. A. (2016). Restoring habitat and cultural practice in Australia’s oldest and largest traditional aquaculture system. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries26, 589–600. doi: 10.1007/s11160-016-9426-1
50
SchefferM.WestleyF.BrockW. (2003). Slow response of societies to new problems: causes and costs. Ecosystems6, 493–502. doi: 10.1007/PL00021504
51
SeneviratneS. I.ZhangX.AdnanM.BadiW.DereczynskiC.Di LucaA.et al. (2021). “Chapter 11: weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate,” in Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Eds. Masson-DelmotteV.ZhaiP.PiraniA.ConnorsS. L.PéanC.BergerS.CaudN.ChenY.GoldfarbL.GomisM. I.HuangM.LeitzellK.LonnoyE.MatthewsJ. B. R.MaycockT. K.WaterfieldT.YelekçiO.YuR.ZhouB. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA), 1513–1766.
52
SidersA. R.HinoM.MachK. J. (2019). The case for strategic and managed climate retreat. Science365 (6455), 761–763. doi: 10.1126/science.aax8346
53
SmithE.VerstratenK. (2013). Sumas First Nation seeks compensation for its lost lake (Vancouver, BC, CA: Vancouver Sun).
54
TennantP. (1990). Aboriginal peoples and politics : the Indian land question in British Columbia 1849-1989 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press). doi: 10.59962/9780774854788
55
Traditional Owner Partnership and Alluvium (2022). Framework: Multiple benefits of ownership and management of water by Traditional Owners (Australia: Traditional Owner Partnership). Central and Gippsland Region Sustainable Water Strategy.
56
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the truth and reconciliation commission of Canada (Ottawa, ON, CA: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada).
57
TubridyF.LennonM.ScottM. (2022). Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: The environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach. Land Use Policy114, 105960. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105960
58
TurnerN. J. (2020). Plants, people, and places : the roles of ethnobotany and ethnoecology in Indigenous peoples’ land rights in Canada and beyond (Kingston, ON and Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press). doi: 10.1515/9780228003175
59
van HerkS.RijkeJ.ZevenbergenC.AshleyR. (2015). Understanding the transition to integrated flood risk management in the Netherlands. Environ. Innovation Societal Transitions15, 84–100. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2013.11.001
60
WestwoodA. R.OttoS. P.MooersA.DarimontC.HodgesK. E.JohnsonC.et al. (2019). Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at risk legislation. FACETS4, 136–160. doi: 10.1139/facets-2018-0042
61
WilsonG. A. (2014). Community resilience: path dependency, lock-in effects and transitional ruptures. J. Environ. Plann. Manage.57, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.741519
62
WinsemiusH. C.AertsJ. C. J. H.van BeekL. P. H.BierkensM. F. P.BouwmanA.JongmanB.et al. (2016). Global drivers of future river flood risk. Nat. Clim Change6, 381–385. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2893
63
WMO (2021). WMO atlas of mortality and economic losses from weather, climate and water extreams, (1970-2019) (No. 1267) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization).
64
WWF (2017). Living planet report Canada (Toronto, ON: WWF).
65
WWF (2018). Living planet report - 2018: aiming higher (Gland, Switzerland: WWF).
66
ZevenbergenC.van HerkS.RijkeJ.KabatP.BloemenP.AshleyR.et al. (2013). Taming global flood disasters. Lessons learned from Dutch experience. Nat. Hazards65, 1217–1225. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0439-3
67
ZussmanR. (2021). B.C. floods caused estimated $450 million in insured damage, industry group says (Global News). Available at: https://globalnews.ca/news/8438657/bc-flood-damage-estimate/.
Summary
Keywords
managed retreat, ecocultural restoration, flood response, indigenous knowledge, climate change, climate adaptation, water back, indigenous food sovereignty
Citation
Finn RJR, Ned - Kwilosintun M, Ballantyne L, Hamilton I, Kwo J, Seymour-Hourie R, Carlson D, Walters KE, Grenz J and Martin TG (2024) Reclaiming the Xhotsa: climate adaptation and ecosystem restoration via the return of Sumas Lake. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1380083. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1380083
Received
01 February 2024
Accepted
03 April 2024
Published
03 June 2024
Volume
5 - 2024
Edited by
Jean Hugé, Open University of the Netherlands, Netherlands
Reviewed by
Erin Louise O’Donnell, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Fortunate Phaka, North-West University, South Africa
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2024 Finn, Ned - Kwilosintun, Ballantyne, Hamilton, Kwo, Seymour-Hourie, Carlson, Walters, Grenz and Martin.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Riley J. R. Finn, riley.finn@ubc.ca
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.