A farmer digs an irrigation ditch for a nearby field. It begins as nothing more than a dirt trench, but it doesn’t take long for grass to line its banks. Later that greenery is joined by shrubs, blackberry bushes and eventually trees. At some point, fish or even beaver may move in and call it home.
Is it still just a farmer’s ditch, or has it become something else — a precious waterway in need of protection?
The answer, it seems, is often a matter of an individual’s perspective and personal values. Some are quick to lay woes of the environment on “yahooing” farmers and deaf policy makers, while others will shake their heads or raise their fists at “overboard” regulations and the continued lobbying and litigation threats of green warriors.
For many others, however, the answer is not so clear and, thankfully, Island County planning leaders are included in this group. A farmer’s ability to maintain ditches is one of the questions they are grappling with in attempting to draft the fish and wildlife update, a component of the county’s critical areas rules.
These regulations are required under the Growth Management Act of 1990 — landmark legislation that changed the course of development in Washington. The intent behind the act was indeed to better the lives of everyone in the state, and planners do have a responsibility to pen rules that don’t cater to the demands of a single group — any single group.
The planning department should be congratulated for its middle of the road approach and not falling prey to the agenda of a few, which includes farmers and environmental activists alike.
Planning Director Dave Wechner is right that the end product should be a compromise, and that if done correctly, no one will get everything they want.
Farming is an ancient and noble avocation. It’s hard work, the pay is lousy and is often the focus of controversy in growth sensitive communities. That doesn’t give them license to do whatever they want, for the best available science — a mainstay behind GMA required rule updates — is our teacher. As a society, we must be able to adapt and be willing to change practices that are identified as harmful to the environment. Increased economic hardship is not a sufficient justification for unchecked ecological destruction.
Yet, simply walking across grass can be environmentally destructive. The green utopia desired by some is an unlikely future in a world filled with people, which makes moderation and compromise the key.
Giving farmers a do-anything-pass is as unreasonable as requiring them to float over their fields on magical wings of environmental righteousness.
