One of our favorite gifts is stumbling upon a story where folks are FURIOUS because a beaver dam was removed! Instead of a lush pool filled with wildlife their home overlooks a muddy puddle in an empty landscape. Take this story from New Brunswick, Canada for example:
Residents in a Moncton neighborhood want to know why a developer got permission to destroy wetlands in their backyards.
Earlier this week, Claude Gagnon removed beaver dams located behind homes on Fundy Street, near Harrisville Boulevard, which caused the marshland that hosts a variety of wildlife to drain away. The residents contend the area — which used to be a protected wetland — should continue to be protected.
“These wetlands means so much to the entire street, I feel like it’s just been taken away from us. One night and the life in this area is just gone,” he said. Giles said he chose to live in the area because of the wetlands, full of Red-winged Blackbirds, mallards and beavers. “It now looks like France in 1914, World War I, after it had just been pulverized by explosive shells and trenches.… It just looks terrible.”
I couldn’t agree with you more! You know some communities get so mad about this kind of thing that they take it to court. Like this case just decided in New Hampshire after 6 years.
MORRISSEY v. TOWN OF LYMENo. 2010-661. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Argued: September 21, 2011. Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011.
Beaver dams located in the wetlands have historically controlled the water level of Post Pond and the Clay Brook wetlands. In the spring of 2004, the Town adopted a water release policy prohibiting the breaching of beaver dams and the lowering of the water level of Post Pond. In December 2004, DES determined that the natural mean high water mark (Water Mark) for Post Pond corresponds to a level of three feet on the local staff gauge. Subsequently, the Town modified its water release policy to permit the breaching of beaver dams only when the water level exceeds the Water Mark.
So the beaver dams maintained the water height. The city was nervous about the water height. But residents forced the city to ONLY mess with the beaver dams when certain standards were met. A flow device was installed. Over the years the city whittled away at the standards until in 2008 they disregarded them all together. Apparently they deduced that if the water level was lower they could add a few more feet to the sports field downstream.
In May 2009, the petitioners filed a petition in equity and writ of mandamus alleging that the Town’s actions adversely affected their properties and property rights and disrupted the entire Clay Brook wetlands ecosystem. They requested the court to find that the Town had violated RSA chapter 482-A, RSA chapter 483-B, RSA chapter 212-A, the public trust doctrine, the town zoning ordinance and a conservation easement. They also asked the court to find that the Town had trespassed on Sears’ and Rogers’ property, created and maintained a private nuisance by unreasonably interfering with the petitioners’ use and enjoyment of their properties and committed a taking. They requested that the court order the Town to comply with the relevant statutes, restore the water level in Post Pond to the Water Mark, remediate certain erosion and siltation problems, and cease its trespass, taking and nuisance activities. The petitioners further alleged that the State had failed to fulfill its statutory duties to regulate the Town’s actions. Consequently, they asked the court to find that the State had violated certain enumerated statutes and the public trust doctrine and sought to have the court order it to comply with the relevant statutes.
The town responded by demanding that the claim be dismissed saying basically, no one cares about your ol’ beaver dam, you don’t have the standing to challenge us and besides beavers are icky. The case kicked around appellate court for a good 2 years and then decided this week. The review was entirely sympathetic to the city, going so far as to say that having one’s wetlands reduced to a mudpuddle is only a minor inconvenience.
I only wish the petitioners had involved a beavers heavyweight to discuss what happens when wetlands are lost. Maybe Donald Hey from nearby Chicago? He testified in the appellate case down south and they won. Meaning the losers paid all attorneys fees to the tune of several hundred thousands of dollars. While you’re at it why not bring in Skip to say whether that ‘pipe’ installed was ever legitimate in the first place?
Well New Hampshire has a lot to learn about beavers. We’ll certainly do what we can. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King: “The arc of conservation is long, but it bends towards beavers”.
