Can city cut down beloved 400-year-old tree? Thurston County judge rules
A Thurston County Superior Court judge has ruled that the City of Tumwater can’t cut down the historic Davis Meeker Oak tree without prior approval from its Historic Preservation Commission.
The 400-year-old oak tree has been the subject of debate in Tumwater since last summer, when Mayor Debbie Sullivan used executive action to try to have the tree cut down, citing its poor health and high risk for causing accidents, injury or death. In May 2023, an 18-inch diameter branch fell from the tree and onto the roadway below. The tree is located on Old Highway 99 on the edge of the Olympia Regional Airport.
A group of residents stopped the city from cutting down the tree by suing.
According to a Dec. 30 news release from the Save the Davis-Meeker Garry Oak citizen group, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Egeler ruled on Dec. 26 that the city “may not alter or destroy the historic Davis Meeker Oak without first obtaining the approval of the Tumwater Historic Preservation Commission.”
The ruling states that this is a permanent situation for the city, and nothing can be done to the tree without prior express permission.
The Olympian was not immediately able to reach Mayor Sullivan for comment Tuesday. Mayor-elect Leatta Dahlhoff told The Olympian she has no problem upholding the court’s decision. She said city attorneys drafted a proclamation that she signed and was included in the Dec. 26 court decision, stating she will abide by the processes that are set by the Historic Preservation Commission.
“I’m on board with the steps that need to be taken regarding historical items, not just buildings, right, but organic structures as well,” she said. “And I’ve been consistent with that stance all along, so I don’t have any problem upholding what the court said.”
The city released an assessment of the tree in February that stated the tree was in good enough health to stay, if it were managed properly. That could cost thousands of dollars.
Ronda Larson Kramer, one of the attorneys for the citizen group, said the order makes it clear that no mayor, now or in the future, can “secretly or unilaterally destroy a registered historic resource.”
“The city has to follow the law, just like everyone else,” she said in the release.
According to the release, the court order doesn’t prevent the city from caring for the tree or addressing any safety concerns.
Michelle Peterson, spokesperson for the citizen group, said in the release that the decision isn’t radical, but basic, good governance.
“Historic protections mean something only if cities are required to follow them,” she said. “This case was never just about one tree. It’s about whether local governments can ignore their own laws when such laws are inconvenient. The court has now answered that question clearly.”
.jpg)