There are a number of ways to look at a city tree: as agents of Gaia, as public latrines, as an audience for croquet matches in the park ­– most of us, however, simply appreciate them for the beauty and serenity they bring.

The Evergreen Cities Act, under review in the Washington state legislative session, seeks to allocate $1 million to keep Washington cities green.

“There are endless benefits for having trees in the city,” said UW alumna Stacy Ray, an urban forester of Kirkland. “[Retaining trees] is always a challenge with the amount of growth in this area. We take them for granted because we seem to have so many.”

Satellite pictures provided by American Forests, a Washington, D.C. non-profit organization, show that in the last 30 years urban forests have diminished 25 percent in the state of Washington and nearly 50 percent in Seattle. Urban growth throughout the state is projected to continue.

“The revenue will be available to communities to encourage urban forestry,” said Gordon Bradley, a professor with the UW College of Forest Resources. This will be done by creating regional goals for the urban canopy, he said, and by establishing or improving regulations to guide new developments and provide funds for tree care and conservation.

The act will also collect a statewide inventory of urban trees.

“Many of our graduates [in the College of Forest Resources] will be involved with the surveying,” Bradley said.

Urban forests have multiple benefits for the city and its people.

Kathleen Wolf, a UW Forest Resources professor, has done extensive research on trees’ economic, environmental and sociological advantages.

Beyond the obvious aesthetic and environmental attributes, her research shows that by absorbing water, trees serve as natural storm drains and help to prevent erosion, saving cities money on infrastructure and maintenance. Trees also stimulate the economy by increasing property values.

While the benefits of trees from a personal and city perspective are evident, there is contention on how best to benefit global ecology when assessing urban development. Incorporating trees into development may create sprawls.

“We’re doing a reasonably good job at building up instead of out,” Bradley said. “But when you increase the density of urban areas you need to make those places livable.”

The push of urban boundaries against natural expanses and longer commutes could nullify their positive environmental impact. The Evergreen Cities Act must account for the already established Growth Management Act, which designates the bounds of development.

Judd Black, the development manager of Redmond, said that even with its strict tree retention policy, they are still adhering the density specifications of the city’s zoning ordinance.

Redmond and Kirkland are two examples of working urban forest management. Redmond has had their tree retention ordinance for more than 9 years.

“We’ve had our ordinance for so long that developers know what to expect,” Black said.

Kirkland’s tree rules have only been in place for two years, and strive to reconstruct the model of their city.

“The challenge is changing the mindset of what a downtown street looks like,” Ray said. “It’s a long term project. … It’s all about planning for the future with urban forestry.”

[Reach contributing writer Cody Curtis at development@thedaily.washington.edu.]