People who defend trees, clean water, clean air  and public health are frequently dismissed as a “vocal minority.” The phrase is intended to marginalize them—to suggest that their concerns are exaggerated, unpopular or standing in the way of progress. A board member emphasized in a Pacific county plan 2027 meeting stating  that he and the other nine board members present were representatives of the 2000 plus residents  of Surfside. And the handful of Surfside residents who were present to voice their views at the meeting were just the vocal minority. They also brought their own high paid  lawyer to advocate for the nine board members advocating for reduced environmental protections.

By attempting to marginalize Surfside’s environmental advocates, the board member overlooked that they are not speaking only for themselves. They are giving voice to children, vulnerable seniors, wildlife, future homeowners, and everyone in Pacific County who depends on clean air, safe water, and a livable climate. They also speak for the trees, wetlands, wildlife, and waterways that cannot attend a county meeting, cast a ballot, or defend themselves when financial interests are prioritized over environmental protection.

In Surfside, the real question is not whether environmental advocates are too vocal. It is why those responsible for protecting the community have been so unwilling to listen to residents whose health and well being are  impacted by Pacific county decisions.

Surfside’s disappearing canopy

Local canopy analysis indicates that parts of west Surfside may have lost roughly half their tree canopy since 2018. During the same period, residents have documented topped, disfigured, diseased, declining, and dead trees throughout the community. Residents may now face fines not only for topped trees but also for trees that later die following repeated cutting.

Meanwhile, recurring algae blooms over the past year have contributed to fish deaths, concerns about potentially toxic conditions, and the loss of recreational opportunities.

This decline did not happen by accident. Surfside’s rigid tree-height restrictions and aggressive enforcement have encouraged repeated cutting of trees to artificial limits. In many cases, trees have not been professionally cut for health or safety. They have been cut simply to comply with 16 and 24 limits.

Washington’s Department of Natural Resources warns that topping exposes wood to decay and can create weak or hollow limbs. The International Society of Arboriculture calls topping one of the most harmful pruning practices because it can produce stress, decay and poorly attached new growth. A tree that initially appears shorter may become less healthy and potentially more hazardous over time. Washington Department of Natural Resources, International Society of Arboriculture

The irony is impossible to ignore: rules promoted partly in the name of appearance, and  property values may be contributing to a landscape filled with stressed, dying and dead vegetation. The spread of western gall rust disease in surfside is made easier by trees that are topped.

Healthy trees contain moisture, provide shade and help keep surrounding soil and vegetation cooler.  Indiscriminate height limits that repeatedly injure living trees leads to increased fire risk from the diseased trees. .

Trees are public-health infrastructure

Trees are sometimes treated as decorations that can be removed whenever they interfere with a view or individual property preference. Science tells us they are much more.

Trees cool neighborhoods, intercept stormwater, stabilize soil, absorb carbon, filter pollutants and provide wildlife habitat. The World Health Organization reports that residential greenery can promote mental and physical health by reducing heat, air pollution, noise and stress.

The Environmental Protection Agency also identifies cleaner air, cooler temperatures, reduced energy demand and improved stormwater management among the benefits of trees and vegetation. World Health Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

These benefits are especially important in Pacific County, where many residents are older or live with disabilities, respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease and other chronic conditions. Removing shade and greenery is not merely an aesthetic decision. It can affect health, comfort, energy costs and quality of life.

When board members disregard this evidence in favor of narrow financial or property interests, they are not simply choosing one landscaping preference over another. They are deciding whose health, safety and future matter. Their attempt to marginalize other residents is an attempt to silence the well being  people whose health and financial interests are impacted.

Tens of thousands in perceived local value versus billions in losses

Supporters of aggressive tree cutting may believe that preserving a view will add tens of thousands of dollars to an individual property’s value. Even if that assumption were proven, it must be weighed against the larger economic value of a healthy, resilient community.

What is a possible $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000 increase in one property’s value compared with a global impact of  millions or billions of dollars in flood, fire and infrastructure losses?

In December 2025, a powerful atmospheric river produced widespread flooding across Washington, damaging homes, businesses, roads, levees and public facilities. Whatcom County alone reported more than $23 million in damage. Communities also faced closed highways, contaminated water systems, interrupted businesses and months of recovery.

Washington officials described the event as one of the most devastating natural disasters in the state’s history. Washington Emergency Management Division, Washington State Standard

Those losses illustrate the economic importance of natural infrastructure. Trees, wetlands and intact riparian vegetation cannot prevent every flood, but they intercept rainfall, slow runoff, stabilize soil and reduce pressure on drainage systems. When communities weaken these protections, they can increase the amount of water, sediment and pollution moving toward homes, roads and waterways.

Healthy forests and neighborhood trees should not be confused with unmanaged accumulations of dry fuel. Repeated topping that leaves trees stressed, decaying or dying is a policy that leads to increased fire risk but also denies the senior residents of Surfside the health benefit of trees.

Nepal shows the true scale of environmental loss

The financial contrast becomes even more striking when we look beyond Washington.

Catastrophic flooding in Nepal in August 2026 caused an estimated $2.56 billion in direct losses to property, housing and infrastructure, according to Nepalese disaster officials. Preliminary estimates indicated that thousands of homes were destroyed and many more would need to be rebuilt. Broader reconstruction costs were expected to be even higher. Reuters

Consider the scale of that loss. At $25,000 each, it would take more than 102,000 supposed property-value gains to equal $2.56 billion. That comparison still does not account for lost lives, displaced families, destroyed communities, disrupted electricity, damaged water systems and lost cultural heritage. Now clearly it’s just a point being made that every environmental decision made repeatedly can have a major accumulative effect.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres summarized the injustice facing Nepal after visiting the Himalayas: “Nepal, and other vulnerable mountain countries, are being pounded by a crisis that is not of their making.” He warned that “Nepal’s mountains are crying out for help.” His words capture the moral failure behind climate change: communities that contributed the least to the crisis are frequently forced to pay its greatest human, environmental and financial costs.

Nepal contributes only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, yet its people face severe dangers from extreme rainfall, floods, landslides, heat and increasingly unstable Himalayan glaciers.

A World Bank assessment identifies river flooding, heat exposure, drought, landslides and air pollution as major threats to Nepalese households and livelihoods. World Bank

The people living beneath melting glaciers did not produce most of the emissions warming the planet. Yet they are paying an enormous financial and human price because wealthier nations and communities have repeatedly placed immediate economic interests ahead of long-term environmental stability throughout the world.

Nepal is used as an example of a minority population impacted by decisions made by worldwide leaders.  Is it important to listen to this minority voice now?

The same thinking at different scales

Surfside or Pacific County  is not responsible for a single flood or climate disaster in Nepal. But the underlying pattern of thinking across the world on ignoring environmental impacts due to financial considerations is similar.

It begins when people convince themselves that their individual actions are too small to matter:

• Cutting one tree will not change the climate.
• Decreasing riparian buffers will not affect a lake and wildlife.
• Preserving one view will not harm the community or neighbors.
• One community’s emissions will not affect another country.
• One financially motivated policy decision will not change the future.

But environmental destruction is the accumulation of millions of supposedly insignificant decisions. The decision to remove one tree repeated a 100 million times with some estimate a billion times this year will not impact me. These are the estimated tree losses in past years.

The consequences do not remain within property lines, HOA boundaries, counties or national borders. Carbon released without trees to absorb it in one place changes the atmosphere everywhere. The loss of trees reduces carbon storage and weakens local environmental protections. It can also damage wetlands and waterways, increase polluted runoff, and heighten flood and fire risks for residents who may have had little or no voice in the decisions affecting their community.

Surfside members voted for taller trees

The board member stated that he has a duty to represent the entire community without bias. Yet Surfside HOA pursued legal action against one resident over tree-height restrictions, reportedly resulting in a $20,000 settlement, while another elderly resident was fined $5,000 under rules that pressured owners to top their trees to avoid penalties—practices associated with damaged, diseased, and dying trees. The association should serve all members fairly, not function primarily as an instrument for a small group of property owners who place their personal views or financial interests above environmental protection.

The passage of Surfside’s member-sponsored tree motion challenges any attempt to dismiss tree advocates as merely a “vocal minority.” The motion sought to improve tree health and increase the community’s tree canopy by raising the 16-foot height limit on the west side surrounding canals and sea breeze lake  to 25 feet. This would provide scientifically based environmental protection from stormwater runoff containing pollutants

Motion K, which called for increasing tree-height limits to 24 feet, passed by a decisive vote of 431–308. More than 58% of participating members supported the change—a margin of 123 votes.

Despite that clear expression of member preference, the motion was later rejected on the grounds that it constituted a covenant change and the vote was ignored. The outcome preserved the existing height restrictions even though a substantial majority of voting members had asked for greater freedom to allow healthier, taller trees.

That decision raises a fundamental governance question: If members vote for change and their decision is subsequently set aside, whose interests are actually being represented by board members?

Therefore, the board member’s claim that he represented all Surfside members without bias is difficult to reconcile with the board’s decision to disregard the member-approved motion and take no further action, despite a majority voting to increase tree-height limits.

Surfside’s tree policies continue to reflect a narrow and outdated assumption that shorter trees are important to increase property values. That belief ignores modern arboriculture, public-health research, climate science and the visible condition of trees throughout Surfside to protect the entire community from climate threats.

It also demonstrates how procedural arguments can be used to preserve the status quo after residents have voted for reform. If Motion K required a different legal process, the responsible response should have been to establish a valid path for members to vote on the covenant change—not to treat their clearly expressed decision as though it had never happened.

A board cannot credibly dismiss residents as a “vocal minority” while disregarding a 431–308 vote. Nor can it claim to represent the entire community while preserving policies favored by the losing side.

Leadership requires more than enforcing old rules. It requires respecting the will of the membership and recognizing when those rules are causing environmental harm.

The board member also failed to acknowledge that the canals and lakes in west Surfside discharge through outfalls to the Pacific Ocean. Runoff from surrounding properties can carry pollutants into these waterways and, particularly during winter atmospheric-river storms, flow onward to the ocean. Protecting Surfside’s canals, lakes, and vegetated buffers is therefore essential to safeguarding the Pacific Ocean and the beaches of the Long Beach Peninsula.

Pacific county must take into consideration that protecting these lakes and canals impact all the residents living on the peninsula.

Money cannot replace a living ecosystem

Money can repair a road, replace a building or purchase another parcel. It cannot quickly recreate a mature tree canopy. It cannot restore decades of lost growth, revive a dead waterway or immediately rebuild a functioning wildlife habitat. It cannot adequately compensate a family that has lost its home, health or loved ones. Who will provide the billions needed to repair the damage caused in Nepal by melting glaciers.

Property has lasting value only when the surrounding community remains healthy, attractive, resilient and safe by protecting the local environment .

Trees do not reduce Surfside’s value. Healthy trees are part of its value. And most importantly improve the health and well being of residents.

They shelter homes and wildlife, cool the ground, absorb rainfall, stabilize soil and help define the natural character of the peninsula. Destroying those benefits in pursuit of a possible increase of tens of thousands of dollars on selected properties is not sound economic policy. It transfers environmental and financial risks to everyone else.

Speaking is a responsibility

Those fighting for Surfside’s trees and waterways should not apologize for being vocal. Silence would allow the damage to continue unnoticed and unchallenged. The board member who attempted to dismiss these individuals’ concerns failed to recognize that millions of Americans have the right to raise their voices—and that public participation is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Environmental advocates have often been ridiculed before being proven right. They warned about polluted water, dangerous pesticides, habitat destruction, disappearing forests and climate change. Again and again, action was delayed because prevention was portrayed as too expensive or inconvenient. The eventual cost—in money, health and lives—was far greater.

Pacific county still has time to choose a different path. It can replace rigid height limits with policies that improve the environment and grow tree canopy. It can protect riparian buffers, restore canopy, recognize trees as essential infrastructure and give residents a meaningful voice in environmental decisions.

The choice is not between people and trees. It is between a possible short-term benefit for a few and the long-term health, safety and value of the entire community.

The people speaking for trees are not merely a vocal minority. They are the community’s conscience—and they are warning us before more of what makes Surfside healthy, beautiful and resilient is lost is the same across the entire county

Pacific County has a responsibility to protect the health, safety and environment of all residents, regardless of whether they live within an HOA. County environmental standards should be based on science, state law and the public interest—not tied to private HOA covenants that may prioritize views or individual property interests over healthy trees, waterways and habitat.

Cities and counties across Washington have adopted tree-canopy goals, critical-area protections, increased riparian buffers and climate-resilience policies to reduce heat, manage stormwater, protect water quality and improve residents’ physical and mental well-being and protect against climate risks.

Washington law requires Pacific County to consider equity, public health, and the needs of vulnerable populations when making land-use and climate-resilience decisions. Under RCW 36.70A.070, county planning policies must give special consideration to environmental justice and avoid creating or worsening environmental-health disparities. This responsibility is especially important in communities with large senior populations like Surfside because older adults, people with disabilities, and residents with chronic health conditions may face greater risks from extreme heat, wildfire smoke, flooding, poor water quality, and the loss of protective tree canopy.

Washington’s environmental policy also recognizes every person’s fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment under RCW 43.21C.020. Together, these laws support Pacific County taking reasonable, evidence-based action to protect—not increase—the risks to the lives, health, and well-being of vulnerable senior residents.

Pacific County should provide the same consistent protection by establishing countywide standards that recognize trees and natural areas as essential public infrastructure and prevent private rules or attempts by private HOAs from weakening protections needed for the entire community.

We are grateful for the dedicated voices advocating to protect our environment against financial decisions made based on money. Every local environmental decision matters in confronting climate threats that affect communities both here at home and around the world. Now if only leaders would listen.