...AND WHAT OF THE TREES?

The latest piece posted on the Save The Summit web site, "The Case of the Missing Trees", has stirred some thoughts in this old conservationists mind, and I'd like to share them with you.  I'll relay a story of not 500 trees, but one tree, one majestic redwood, that fell for all the wrong reasons.

We value the trees around our modest cabin, the pine, fir, and different deciduous species that climb gracefully to the sky, providing beauty, shade, and calming whispers in the wind on warm summer nights or, with a bit more impact, during rowdy winter storms.  They help to put us in what we believe is the proper perspective.  They are such an integral part of our lives, both at The Summit and at our home in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Several months ago my wife and I returned from a couple of days at The Summit to find, much to our great dismay, that a coastal redwood that sat on our neighbor's property, at the corner of our two properties, had been cut down, the stump ground out, and the detritus of the foul act left lying around the scene, where it still is today.  This tree and I were of approximately the same age, and meant a lot to me, for a lot of reasons.  About a year earlier, part of the tree had fallen into our yard, causing several thousand dollars of damage, which was covered by our insurance.  That initial occurrence put the fear of liability into our neighbors (two lawyers), and I had to beg them to leave the healthy part of the tree standing.  They assured me they would.  To make a long story short, another branch fell from the tree, another neighbor complained, and the tree was gone.  A choice was made, a promise was broken, and there the story ends...but the ramifications, although justifiable to some parties in this story, continue to plague me.

"The Case of the Missing Trees" and our own loss of a very special tree are at the opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to volume, but very much the same in terms of the lack of responsibility to the world around us.  Economic gain, whether through monies spent, not spent, or collected, can be a very powerful factor in luring one away from doing the right thing, and that can manifest itself through broken promises, acts of desperation, or some such devious doings.  In this case, it was a personal thing for Jeanne and I, and that colors our opinion very brightly.  

With regards to Van Norden Meadow, do the risks of development and the consequences of same outweigh the responsibilities we have to the land and to future generations?  Does economic gain, and not at all assured economic gain, trump the conservation ethic that would save an entire watershed?  We're talking, after all, about the headwaters of the Yuba, all the downstream users, and, oh yeah, the flora and fauna that make up the landscape of this most beautiful river.  We can all see the results of the initial development at Soda Springs.  From the breached dam down to past The Always Inn, and further to the treatment plant, the river is severely impacted, especially just past the old spillway.  The opportunity to revive this part of the river still exists, but not if a dam is built, not if more homes are built, not if an unnecessary interpretive center, ice rink, employee housing, and whatever else is in the mix are built.  The water would be gone, used to maintain yet another scar on the Sierra Nevada landscape. 

And what of the trees?  How many would be gone from our consciousness if this development in its current form goes forward, both at Van Norden Meadow and at the rest of the sites mentioned in the Foster/Syme proposal?  Do we trust a developer to do the right thing environmentally?  Can we truly believe that future decisions would be made on a rational level, with conservation issues outweighing economic gain?  The actions of the recent past, all throughout the Sierra Nevada, and indeed in our own back yards, show otherwise.  The closed-door meetings and clandestine decisions that go on behind our backs, in all aspects of our lives, are an unfortunate reality, and have made some of us wary to the point of distrust.  So no, I don't believe we can trust folks to do the right thing, whether it involves one tree, 500 trees, or thousands of acres of land.  Although the Martis Valley accord decreases some small percentage of our doubts and fears, we remain on guard for the protection of the rest of these most beautiful Sierra Nevada ecosystems.  

We maintain hope that the folks at Foster/Syme will see the light.  True stewardship of the land, and the opportunity to create a model for future development in the Sierra Nevada range, should be a powerful draw towards doing the right thing.  Land swaps, scaled-down plans, a true environmental ethic...all these things could and should make for a proper development, and leave Foster/Syme with a project that they could be quite proud of, especially in terms of respecting the land and doing that elusive right thing. 

And the trees, at least a good percentage of them, would survive, and the land would be just that much more protected, that much less scarred.  The Yuba River, these several ecosystems, the Sierra Nevada, this Range of Light, all deserve that and more.

Tom and Jeanne Appelbaum