Everett, Wash. Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
To many in rural areas, burn ban attacks way of life
By Kaitlin Manry, Herald Writer
DARRINGTON -- Piles of branches litter Joe Day's yard.
Mounds of mangled tree limbs that fell in winter winds lie buried under snow. A waist-high heap of sticks and leaves sits nearby, waiting.
Once the snow begins to melt and the bark dries, Day plans to burn the piles.
For him and scores of other Snohomish County residents, burning yard debris is part of a much-loved country lifestyle that could soon be extinct.
A proposal that may be adopted into law later this month would ban the burning of trees, stumps, shrubbery, leaves and lawn clipping in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties.
The proposal, intended to combat air pollution, has inflamed homeowners who burn as a way to deal with downed limbs and wayward blackberry bushes on large lots.
"It's been started by folks who live in the city," said Day, a wiry man in snow boots and a wide-brimmed hat. "They don't understand. I'm not just some kind of hick who's going to burn anything I cut down. I'm very concerned about air quality."
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency proposed the ban after reviewing data and determining that there are "reasonable" alternatives to burning in unincorporated parts of the region, said Jim Nolan, director of compliance for the Seattle-based agency. Backyard burning is already illegal in towns and cities in the three-county area.
Wood chippers are becoming more readily available and other forms of recycling would make a burn ban more manageable for some people, Nolan said.
Proponents of the ban blame smoke from yard fires on asthma attacks and foul smelling air.
A rural address doesn't ensure clean, crisp air. Smoke from wood stoves created enough pollution in Darrington two years ago to lead the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to pay residents to switch to new cleaner-burning stoves.
"Wood smoke isn't all that different from cigarette smoke," Nolan said. "You're burning through natural vegetation."
However, complaints from rural residents have made him reconsider his stance. Three-quarters of the 250 or so letters the agency has received on the proposal have been against the ban. Likewise, almost everyone who attended community meetings on the proposal spoke against it, Nolan said.
He hopes to make an official recommendation to the agency's board of directors this week.
"You can take it to the bank that we're listening to these folks and we're trying to figure out how to respond effectively to their comments -- because they've got a point," he said.
Bob Risvold, 81, lives a few houses away from Day on a dirt road west of Darrington. A retired office worker, Risvold has lived alone since his wife died two years ago. If a burn ban were imposed, he doesn't know how he'd get rid of the trees and branches that fall on his land during storms.
"I'd have a pile as big as this house if I didn't burn for a few years," he said, sitting in a recliner near his fireplace. "I think you could talk to most anybody and they'd say, 'Golly. What would I do with all my stuff if I can't burn it?'"
Not only is hauling massive branches to a recycling center impractical, it causes pollution, said Mathalie Mericle, a retired teacher and bus driver who lives on a wooded 6-acre lot near Darrington. She burns blackberry brambles and tree branches a few times a year and views the proposed ban as an infringement on her ability to live as she chooses.
"It would be like the government telling me I couldn't prune my own trees and had to pay someone to come do it, or telling me I couldn't breathe the air that's on my land," she said. "It's where I draw the line."
The ban would not apply to agricultural burning or wood-burning fireplaces. It would, however, ban developers from using fires to clear lots beginning July 1. The remainder of the proposal, including the ban on backyard fires, would be implemented July 1, 2010.
Heather Robinson became a supporter of the ban after spending months inhaling smoke from a land-clearing fire that a developer ignited a half-mile away from her home on the outskirts of Granite Falls.
"They were burning in the middle of July, and it was 90 degrees," she said. "We couldn't open our windows. We couldn't go outside without getting headaches. There were ashes everywhere. It went on for months and months."
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency hasn't received many complaints from developers about the proposal, and may decide to ban burning for land-clearing, while continuing to allow burning by rural homeowners, Nolan said.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency board of directors is scheduled to decide on the proposal following a public hearing at 9:15 a.m. on Feb. 28, at the Seattle Public Library, 1000 Fourth Ave.
If the board passes the burn ban in its entirety, Day isn't sure what he'll do. He hates the idea of breaking the law, but he just can't imagine living on his 8 acres with his horses and his wife and not being able to burn debris from time to time.
"I'll have to cross that bridge when I get there," he said, standing beside a pile of branches. "I live in the boonies. When you live in the boons, you gotta do what you gotta do."
Reporter Kaitlin Manry: 425-339-3292 or kmanry@heraldnet.com.
