Cost of maintaining natural areas worth it

Thanks for Deborah Donovan’s article and Bob Chwedyk’s photographs in the Sept. 25 Home and Garden section about the 80-acre conservancy area that enhances the Estates of Inverness Ridge. Thanks, too, for correcting the puzzling error about the cost of maintaining it.

I was mentally comparing the annual three or four service visits to control invasive plants to the maintenance of a similar area of turf grass, which requires herbicides, fertilizers, irrigation, and frequent mowing. Ron Adams’ corrected statement, that it costs less to maintain the natural area, makes a lot more sense.

Raising the issue of cost also reminds one that the natural meadow, wetlands and woodlands, beside supporting the birds and butterflies, protect the homeowners of the association and also everyone downstream from flooding, even in severe storms (“areas help retain stormwater”).

As Adams points out, the natural system also filters the water entering streams and underground aquifers.

All of us in the region can be grateful to developers and homeowners whose stewardship benefits everyone.

Edna E Heatherington

Glen Ellyn