It Might Be Back To Nature For Snohomish Pasture Land

EBEY SLOUGH - After a century of farming, is it time to return 450 acres of fertile bottom land to nature?

Generations of farmers have grown corn and hay and grazed cattle on rich land near the mouth of Ebey Slough, midway between Everett and Snohomish. Today, however, ``gentleman farmers'' who raise cattle or horses as a sideline, outnumber the old-timers.

``It's great land, but it's so tough to keep dry. The ground is tremendous, but the (dike tax) district is too small and the dike is too long. You've got to have too much money to keep that dike up,'' said Dick Rodland, who sold 70 acres of the flood-prone land after three generations of family ownership.

The November floods ripped two holes in the region's dikes, maintained by Dike District 6. Those gashes, estimated at $80,000 to repair, are still unplugged, and pastures remain flooded.

But some Snohomish County officials don't mind a bit; they'd rather let the pastures revert to wetlands than continue spending public money fixing the dikes.

About 30 property owners might soon be asked to sell their low-lying lands to the county to be turned into a wetlands park. It would cost at least $1 million, but nearly twice that amount has been spent repairing damaged dikes over the past 30 years, said John Engel of the county Surface Water Management office.

It will take about a year to put together funding for the project, probably with a mix of money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, state and county, he said. A second year will probably pass

before all sales are wrapped up.

Many residents are cautiously interested. Others are staunchly opposed.

``There's a really mixed sentiment. Some of the people who have farmed it for generations feel very strongly about it, they feel it should be retained as productive farmland,'' said Morrie Trautman, who grew up on nearby Fobes Hill.

Trautman and his wife, Shirley, own 60 acres along Ebey Slough, 40 of which are included in the flood region. He supports the wetlands proposal, as long as he's not banned from building a home on his 20 acres overlooking the slough.

``The Snohomish River Valley is being eaten up; there's not much left of it. We are more in favor of seeing it put in a land bank of some type. I'm in favor of preserving our wetlands,''said Trautman, who owns a distributing agency for mountain climbing and back-packing equipment.

Dike Commissioner Larry Clark and his wife, Geri, graze 150 head of beef cattle on their 90 acres. About 60 acres are bottom land, and they live in a new house on the view property above.

``If they bring me the right offer with the right conditions, I'll talk about it,'' he said.

The county is now talking about paying $2,100 per acre, but that figure might be adjusted upward after appraisals and negotiations, Engel said.

Dick Rodland sold all but 14 acres 10 years ago, when he tired of running a dairy farm in addition to teaching at Snohomish Middle School. Maintaining the dike district is not affordable for small-scale farmers, he said.

``If it wouldn't have been for the Army Corps of Engineers, I think they would have been forced to give up a long time ago. The farmers couldn't afford to fix'' the dike, he said.

At the far end of the dike district lie 135 disputed acres, which former owner John Spoelstra calls farmland and the Farmers Home Administration calls wetlands. He lost his farm in 1983 after disease swept through his dairy herd and he fell behind on loan payments. He has been fighting the FHA in court ever since to buy it back. So far he has re-claimed his farmhouse and 10 high-ground acres.

``When they took my farm away from me, they didn't take away wetlands. They took away a good farm,'' said Spoelstra, who has appealed that ruling.

``I don't think any of these people can do anything (about the wetlands park) until they're through with me. If it gets to court, I know I'll get my farm back,'' he said.

If the Snohomish County Council votes to proceed with the park, dissenting landowners might be out of luck, Engel said.

``If they get to an absolute point where the property owner refuses to negotiate, the county has the power of (eminent) domain to go ahead and force the sale anyway,'' he said.

``To some extent it will be a political decision. If it turns out the property owners are completely opposed to this thing, they can convince the County Council'' to reject it.