The number of trees being cut down in Surrey that fall under the jurisdiction of the city’s tree preservation bylaw has jumped 22 per cent since the bylaw was enacted in 2006.

How can this be? Surrey now has strict rules regarding tree removal, including a two-for-one replacement requirement and a cash-in-lieu provision that calls for a fee be paid into a Green Fund for each tree that is not replaced.

Part of the reason for the rising tree cuts may be the pace – and scope – of development. Large projects – such as Grandview Corners (at 24 Avenue and 160 Street) – displace large numbers of trees.

But that doesn’t explain why Surrey is falling short on its two-for-one replacement rule. For the past three years, just over 1.3 trees have been planted for each one cut down.

Or why in the last two years, only $200 per tree has been collected as part of the cash-in-lieu system – $100 short of the bylaw requirement.

Dr. Roy Strang, a respected local forestry expert, thinks he knows what the problem is: Political will.

Not when it comes to the spirit of the law, mind you. In 2005, council obviously set out to curtail the number of trees being cut down after then-councillor Dianne Watts deemed that clearcuts were turning Surrey into a “moonscape.”

In fact, the resulting tree preservation bylaw gets the thumbs-up from Strang and several other environmentalists who looked over the document.

But many believe fault lies in enforcement, with not enough staff members available to hold people to the letter of the law.

As Strang says, council needs to tell their staff, “look, we mean business.”

Bring in more bodies if necessary, but make enforcement of this important legislation a priority.