As scientists learn more about the functions of ecosystems, there is increasing pressure on local governments to impose and enforce ordinances to protect wetlands and other natural systems. As more land is taken over by development, the natural systems that remain seem to grow more precious.
I wrote a story in today's Kitsap Sun about a grove of trees cut down around a pond at the edge of a larger wetland. The owner, a real-estate agent, said she did not realize her property contained a wetland. All she wanted to do was enhance a messy corner of her property.
Years ago, the county probably would not have stepped in. Wetlands were not very well protected. Up into the 1970s, you could pretty much fill in wetlands at will, because they were considered mosquito-breeding nuisances. But times change, and now wetlands are considered important habitat, particularly if they connect to a flowing stream system. (The wetland in question does not appear to connect directly to a stream, so it is called an "isolated wetland.")
What made the story interesting to me was the connection to the previous owner of the property. He had built the pond by scooping out a hole and allowing it to fill up with spring water. The work was done under the direction of an approved wetlands biologist.
When he sold the property, he retained an easement so he could walk over and visit his "sanctuary" among the trees by the pond. He says cutting down those trees destroyed the feeling of seclusion.
County officials say they will seek to restore the trees that were cut down, but it could take decades before new ones grow to the size of the alders that were removed.
As an indication of how things continue to change, county officials tell me that the man-made pond might not be allowed today without a showing of how it will benefit the overall ecosystem. Attracting a large number of ducks to a small pond may or may not be a good thing.
Property owners accustomed to doing what they wish with their land may feel put upon by increasing restrictions. Arguments about what is good or bad for the environment will continue. But courts seem to be upholding many of the environmental protections while telling property owners that they can no longer use the argument that their actions affect nobody else.
