A farmer digs an irrigation ditch for a nearby field. It begins as nothing more than a dirt trench, but it doesn’t take long for grass to line its banks.

Over time that greenery is joined by shrubs, blackberry bushes and, eventually trees. At some point, fish or even beaver may call it home.

Is it still just a farmer’s ditch, or has it become something else, a precious waterway in need of protection?

The answer, it seems, is often a matter of an individual’s perspective. Some are quick to lay woes of the environment on “yahooing” farmers and deaf policy makers, while others will shake their heads or raise their fists at “overboard” regulations and the continued lobbying and litigation threats of green warriors.

For others, however, the answer is not so clear.

Thankfully, Island County planning leaders are included in this latter group.

A farmer’s ability to maintain ditches is one of the questions county planners are grappling with in attempting to draft the fish and wildlife update, a component of the county’s critical area’s rules.

These regulations are required under the state Growth Management Act of 1990 — landmark legislation that changed the course of development in Washington. The intent behind the act was indeed to better the lives of everyone in the state, and planners have a responsibility to pen rules that don’t cater to any single group.

The Planning Department should be applauded for its middle-of-the-road approach and not falling prey to the agenda of both farmers and environmental activists alike.

County Planning Director Dave Wechner is correct when he says that the end product should be a compromise, and that, if done correctly, no one will get everything they want.

Farming is an ancient and noble avocation. It’s hard work, the pay is poor and is often the focus of controversy in growth sensitive communities.

The best available science — a mainstay behind GMA required rule updates — is, and should be, the guide. As a society, we must be able to adapt and be willing to change practices that are identified as harmful to the environment. Increased economic hardship is not a sufficient justification for unchecked ecological destruction.

Yet, simply walking across grass can be environmentally damaging. The green utopia desired by some is an unlikely future in a world filled with people, which makes moderation and compromise crucial.

Giving farmers the go ahead to do whatever they wish is as unreasonable as requiring them to float over their fields on magical wings of environmental righteousness.