Is Government Neglect Allowing Sumas Lake to Return?

By Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®, co-authors of the international bestseller It Starts With Gold™ and the forthcoming book Killing Crypto™ 

This is Part 3 of a three-part series on Sumas Prairie. Part 1, “Sumas Prairie: A Fight for Farmland, Legacy, and Food Security,” traced the land’s history and its transformation into an agricultural foundation. Part 2, “Sumas Prairie Stands on Unstable Ground,” exposed the structural conflicts that placed the region on an uncertain path. 

This final article examines the conditions present by early 2026 and asks a question no government has publicly addressed: 

Is Sumas Lake positioning itself to return through neglect?

This article is an opinion intended to inform and invite dialogue.

In this context, the term “neglect” does not imply intent or conspiracy. It refers to systemic delay, underinvestment, and policy paralysis in infrastructure and water management.

Sumas Prairie sits at the centre of British Columbia’s food system. Its stability depends on engineered structures that must outperform the forces of nature every year. Farmers understand this because they touch the soil daily. They feel the water under their boots. They observe how the land responds to storms.

This analysis is based on publicly reported information, observable conditions, and documentation available as of early 2026.

In early 2026, their observations point to a troubling pattern. Fields remain saturated for longer periods. Ditches rise faster. Pumps cycle harder. Roads soften under ordinary rainfall. These patterns signal a deeper transformation. The valley behaves less like engineered farmland and more like the lake it once was.

A region does not weaken because of one event. It weakens when the systems designed to protect it fall behind the pace of hydrology.

This is how a lake returns without a single announcement, directive, or declared plan.

👉 Want to read more articles like this? Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™.

The December 2025 storms were not historic. They were ordinary seasonal storms. Yet water pooled across the prairie with alarming speed. Barrowtown Pump Station approached its limits even though rainfall totals did not resemble 2021 levels. Ditches filled quickly. Soil lost structure. The land exposed vulnerabilities that had been building for years.

The problem was not the storm. The problem was the system that encountered it.

Residents realized that even routine weather can now produce near-crisis conditions. Four years after the atmospheric river that devastated the region, the province has not built the resilience it promised. Instead, aging infrastructure continues to operate under increasing pressure while upgrades remain stalled.

The lesson is clear. When hydrology accelerates faster than engineering, land remembers its origins.

After the 2021 disaster, government leaders pledged transformation. They promised new dikes, expanded pump capacity, and modernized flood controls. Residents were told that the vulnerabilities exposed by the floods would be corrected.

Early 2026 tells a different story.

Dike upgrades have not begun. No secondary pump station exists. Barrowtown continues to operate near its original limits. Key drainage approvals remain unresolved. Environmental review processes continue to slow critical work.

Some of these approvals now require expanded consultation under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, which adds additional procedural steps even when agencies are acting with good intent. These extended timelines contribute indirectly to the delays residents continue to experience.

Public broadcasters and local media have repeatedly reported on these delays through 2024 and late 2025. Coverage by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has highlighted how major flood-mitigation projects across British Columbia remain stuck in prolonged planning, funding, and approval cycles years after emergency commitments were made.

For residents, these delays are not procedural details. They are warnings. Each year of planning without construction is another year in which the land remembers what it once was. And water does not wait for policy to catch up.

The future of Sumas Prairie now depends on ministries that influence land, water, and regulation. Yet their mandates, priorities, and timelines do not align. The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship increasingly leans toward ecological restoration, expanded wetlands, and nature-based flood systems. While effective in some regions, these approaches conflict with the engineered controls required to preserve reclaimed farmland.

At the same time, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been slow to advance drainage approvals and farmland protections. Farmers experience growing delays and reduced responsiveness as hydrological risks accelerate faster than administrative processes.

The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation implements the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, which aligns British Columbia’s laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as UNDRIP. Shared decision-making expands consultation and approval timelines in regions where hydrological urgency demands speed.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy promotes wetland restoration and natural absorption systems as core climate-adaptation tools. These objectives reshape water behaviour in ways that increasingly favour marshland over farmland.

None of these ministries are acting with harmful intent. Each believes it is fulfilling its mandate, particularly under DRIPA, which encourages expanded consultation and shared decision-making. But these well-intentioned efforts create friction between ministries whose priorities do not align. A reclaimed lakebed cannot survive when the systems meant to protect it move in different directions. This is how institutional drift, driven by competing mandates, becomes a threat to food security.

This drift is not caused by DRIPA itself, but by the way ministries interpret and implement its requirements alongside their existing mandates, creating indirect delays at a time when hydrological risk is increasing.

Hydrology operates on rules that do not consult legislation, public opinion, or political timelines. Water moves where resistance weakens. Soil collapses when drainage systems fail. Floodplains expand when natural memory overpowers engineered restraint.

As early 2026 unfolds, water lingers in fields for weeks, soil saturation exceeds seasonal norms, groundwater rises after routine storms, pumps operate near capacity, and ditches overflow in weather that once posed no threat. These are not anomalies. They are signals.

A system built to hold back a lake must maintain strength. When maintenance falls behind, the lake advances inch by inch, season by season.

This does not imply intent or coordinated policy direction.

British Columbia legislated DRIPA in 2019, becoming the first jurisdiction in the world to embed UNDRIP into provincial law. This framework elevates shared authority, historical land rights, and cultural recognition. These values carry moral weight and legal importance.

Yet in regions like Sumas Prairie, where farmland, hydrology, cultural history, and modern infrastructure converge, shared governance brings extended consultation, revised processes, and expanded approval requirements.

These changes matter because the land does not wait for policy reconciliation. When consultation expands faster than infrastructure, water gains an advantage.

DRIPA and UNDRIP do not direct the lake to return. The resulting administrative friction does not cause hydrological outcomes, but it does slow the decisions and approvals required to maintain engineered protections. In this way, DRIPA’s procedural impact becomes one of several indirect factors that allow existing vulnerabilities to persist.

Climate guidance released by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in 2025 placed strong emphasis on natural floodplain restoration, wetland expansion, and ecological absorption systems.

These strategies work in many regions. They help mitigate floods. They support biodiversity. They restore natural water pathways.

But Sumas Prairie is not an ordinary landscape. It is farmland built on engineered control. Nature-based systems that increase water retention counteract the very infrastructure required to keep the prairie farmable.

As ecological priorities grow stronger, farmland becomes more vulnerable. Each policy shift nudges the land closer to the conditions that once defined it.

Statistics Canada reported increased moisture-related losses across several British Columbia agricultural regions in late 2025. These findings reflected what farmers on Sumas Prairie already knew: the land’s behaviour has changed.

When the Fraser Valley weakens, the province becomes dependent on external supply chains that do not answer to British Columbia’s needs. Food inflation accelerates. Vulnerable families suffer first. Communities lose resilience. An agricultural region that once stabilized the province begins to erode under the weight of competing pressures.

Food security is not protected by committees or policy language. It is protected by land that drains on time.

A system is only as strong as its weakest point. Sumas Prairie still relies on one pump station built for another era. Engineers have warned repeatedly that a secondary station is essential. Reports have confirmed the risk. Committees have reviewed options. Yet construction has not begun.

Each storm pushes Barrowtown closer to limits it cannot exceed. Residents witnessed this pattern again in December 2025. A region cannot claim resilience when its entire defence system depends on a single machine approaching its operational ceiling.

Leadership demands redundancy. Neglect creates vulnerability.

The Nooksack River in Washington State still presents a direct threat to Sumas Prairie. Its overflow pathways lead north into British Columbia, as documented long before the 2021 disaster. Despite years of discussion, no binding cross-border agreement exists that guarantees coordinated protection.

Canadian public broadcasting and national media reported these concerns again in late 2025, highlighting unresolved negotiations and structural gaps.

A reclaimed lakebed cannot survive when international risks remain unmanaged.

Residents face a difficult choice. They can trust assurances that upgrades will come or rely on what they see with their own eyes. The valley shows signs of strain. Water lingers. Soil softens. Infrastructure creaks. Decision-making slows. Policy frameworks expand. Weather intensifies.

People who live on the land understand the consequences. They prepare because waiting carries costs that committees do not feel.

This preparation is not fear. It is leadership.

No ministry has declared that Sumas Lake will return. Yet the outcome increasingly resembles what would occur if such a plan quietly existed. Delayed dike upgrades, inadequate pump capacity, and stalled drainage approvals weaken the systems designed to hold water back. 

Environmental policy now prioritizes wetlands and natural absorption, while extended consultation requirements under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act contribute to longer timelines in a region where hydrological urgency demands speed. Cross-border risks from the Nooksack River remain unresolved, and soil behaviour increasingly reflects rising groundwater levels rather than stable farmland conditions.

Neglect is not passive. It is cumulative. It does not require coordination or intent. It only requires time. Water moves into every gap left unattended.

Taken together, the signals point to a province nearing a threshold. The land is changing. The systems meant to protect it are lagging. Institutions are moving slower than risk. The window for decisive action is narrowing.

Nothing described in this article is irreversible. Every issue can be addressed with leadership, investment, coordination, and urgency. But the opportunity to act shrinks each season.

History does not judge regions by the promises they make, but by the structures they maintain.

Families who drained Sumas Lake a century ago carried a belief that the land could support future generations if people acted with discipline and purpose. That belief created the agricultural foundation that still feeds the province.

That spirit remains. Farmers today recognize the stakes. They build community resilience. They monitor risk. They prepare without waiting for permission. They protect the land because they understand what inaction invites.

A society survives not through perfect systems, but through strong people willing to defend what systems overlook.

Sumas Prairie is not lost. It is endangered. It requires clarity, urgency, and unified purpose. The province can still reinforce dikes, expand pump capacity, accelerate drainage approvals, complete cross-border agreements, and balance environmental planning with food security. Residents can still prepare, organize, and advocate.

Every generation faces a moment when leadership is not optional. Early 2026 is that moment for Sumas Prairie.

The structural drift unfolding on Sumas Prairie mirrors a broader trend we explore in our number one international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™. When institutions slow, when systems weaken, and when uncertainty rises, individuals must strengthen what they can control.

We wrote the book to help families navigate instability with clarity and confidence. We explain how to reinforce financial foundations, protect assets, and maintain resilience when traditional systems no longer provide the security they once promised.

These insights exist for one purpose: to empower individuals who understand that preparation must begin before crisis arrives.

Our team assists clients in structuring wealth by Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security. We prioritize the most secure assets and safeguard those that are most vulnerable using four pillars that form the foundation of long-term financial certainty.

1. 1. 1. Gold and precious metals that hold real, tangible value: These assets stand outside the financial system and act as the anchor when currencies weaken.
      2. Alternative investments that reduce systemic risk: This includes private real estate, private credit, and other non-public assets that generate income without relying fully on public markets.
      3. Private portfolio management that lowers counterparty exposure: Professional discretionary managers provide oversight, structure, and discipline while reducing reliance on mass-market institutions.
      4. Mutual life insurance instruments that protect capital and individuals: These contracts preserve value, create stability, and offer tax-advantaged growth and estate benefits.

In It Starts With Gold™, we describe how these four pillars operate as a unified structure to protect wealth and maintain continuity through economic and political uncertainty. Precious metals preserve purchasing power, alternative investments stabilize income, private portfolio management strengthens oversight, and mutual life insurance reinforces long-term security.

Together, the Four Pillars create a balanced foundation that helps investors remain secure when institutions struggle or when entire regions confront the consequences of delay.

👉 Book Your Complimentary Review to learn how to structure your wealth around the Four Pillars of Asset Security™.

Stay informed. Stay prepared. Act while choice still exists.

These insights connect directly to the themes explored in It Starts With Gold™, co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®. Inside the book, we show how to establish a tangible-asset foundation, measure security across asset classes, and safeguard against systemic shocks while maintaining control of your future. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ to receive a digital copy of It Starts With Gold™, our white paper Last Asset Standing™, and updates on our upcoming book Killing Crypto™.

Prefer a hard copy? Order It Starts With Gold™ on Amazon today.

1. Government of British Columbia. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Accessed 2025
2. Government of British Columbia. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Full Statute) Accessed 2025
3. Government of British Columbia. Sumas River Watershed Flood Mitigation Planning Initiative. Accessed 2025
4. The Tyee. “BC’s Flood Prevention Promises Remain Unfulfilled.” November 17, 2025.” Accessed 2025
5. LaRongeNow.com. “Why Is B.C. Facing the Prospect of a Flood Disaster Again?” December 11, 2025
6. Statistics Canada. “Agriculture and Food Statistics: Crop and Land Use Monitoring.” Government of Canada. Accessed 2025
7. University of British Columbia. “Researchers Call for Return of Sumas Lake Following Devastating 2021 Floods.” June 2024
8. University of the Fraser Valley Library. “Sumas Lake History and Research Guide.” Accessed 2025
9. University of the Fraser Valley Library. “Sumas Prairie 2021 Flood Documentation.” Accessed 2025
10. City of Abbotsford. “Engineering Firm Addresses Cost and Prospects of Sumas Lake Return.” Accessed 2025
11. Fraser Valley Current. “Sumas Lake: Cost–Benefit Analysis of Restoration Proposals.” Accessed 2024
12. Salish Current. “Sumas Lake: Once and Future Feature of the Border.” December 19, 2023
13. Vancouver Sun, “Four years after devastating B.C. floods, little has been done, critics say,” Accessed 2025
14. The Tyee, “The Fraser Valley Is Flooding Again. Are We Ready?” December 11, 2025

This article is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It reflects the authors’ opinions based on publicly available data and observations at the time of writing. It is not financial, legal, tax, investment, real estate, engineering, or environmental advice. The analysis of land use, hydrological risk, infrastructure, governance frameworks, and economic impacts is opinion-based and may change as conditions evolve.

Readers should not rely on this publication to make decisions about investments, land, insurance, or financial planning. Any action should be taken only after consulting qualified professionals who can assess individual circumstances. All investments and planning strategies involve risk, and outcomes may be affected by changes in government policy, regulatory frameworks, environmental conditions, and market factors.

The authors provide professional services through their respective regulated affiliations, and nothing in this article is specific advice to any individual or entity. No guarantee is made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information presented. For guidance tailored to your situation, please consult a licensed financial advisor, tax specialist, legal professional, or other qualified expert.