Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would help fight thirsty tamarisk ( Helping Water Quality )
The Daily Sentinel ^ | May 03, 2006 | SALLY SPAULDING

Posted on 05/03/2006 11:17:06 AM PDT by george76

A bill aimed at tackling water-thirsty tamarisk cleared a major hurdle Tuesday, passing the U.S. House of Representatives.

Tamarisk, the fluffy plant with lavender blooms, is also known as salt cedar and has invaded stream banks throughout the American West.

It drinks enough water annually to supply 20 million people, according to some estimates.

The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act would provide $80 million over the next five years to assess the extent of the plants’ infestation and offer solutions.

It is estimated the tamarisk plant and Russian olive trees, both of which are nonnative species, occupy up to 1.6 million acres in the West...

“According to the Tamarisk Coalition, the western U.S. is probably losing anywhere from 2 to 4.5 million acre-feet of water per year,”...

A family of four uses about half an acre foot of water per year.

The Tamarisk Coalition was created in Mesa County six years ago for the purpose of eradicating the plant here.

Since then, the coalition has grown. It now has representation from 17 Western states.

Other projects have used beetles to help control tamarisk.

About 2,400 beetles were released last year in McInnis Canyons.

The beetles remove the tamarisk foliage, thereby reducing the number of seeds that can produce more tamarisk.

If the tree is defoliated several times, it can eventually die.

(Excerpt) Read more at gjsentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: California; US: Colorado; US: Idaho; US: Kansas; US: New Mexico; US: Oregon; US: Texas; US: Utah; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: 109th; california; cedar; congress; energy; olive; russian; russianolive; salt; saltcedar; tamarisk; tamariskcoalition; tamariskfoliage; water
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 05/03/2006 11:17:09 AM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

Wonder if we could reduce the number of other non-native species which have invested the southwest. Does anyone know a mexican eating beetle?


2 posted on 05/03/2006 11:22:52 AM PDT by tigtog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenFreeper

Threat to Native Species and/or Environments: The tamarisk is a major threat to native riparian woodlands, which support the greatest levels of biodiversity within desert ecosystems.

It is a fire-adapted species, often increasing the frequency and intensity of fires that can severely burn native vegetation.1

It can also change the salinity of soils, which kills intolerant riparian plants such as the Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Goodding's willow (Salix gooddingii).

Tamarisks use great amounts of ground water which lowers groundwater tables, causing springs to dry up and other plants to perish.

Their dense growth within washes and other watercourses can promote flooding by blocking the natural flow of water. 2

Native wildlife species, especially birds, have declined in numbers where tamarisks have invaded due to their small fruits and seeds, lack of insects, unpalatable foliage and unsuitable structure for cover and nesting.3

http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/sdcp2/fsheets/ex/tama.html


3 posted on 05/03/2006 11:23:46 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

"The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act would provide $80 million over the next five years to assess the extent of the plants’ infestation and offer solutions."
Seems to me that the $80 mil could be better spent on eradication efforts as opposed to study efforts! Buy some chainsaws, put together some road-type work crews, and start cutting the trees down! At least that would begin to control the problem, and stop a lot of them from setting seed etc.. But, no! We need another study???


4 posted on 05/03/2006 11:25:30 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

And yet, to buy a small bunch of tamarisk twigs will cost you $35.00. Go figure!


5 posted on 05/03/2006 11:29:02 AM PDT by McGavin999 (The US media is afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

They have been doing studies for a long time.

Hopefully most of this money will go toward removal.

This tamarisk uses alot of water.


6 posted on 05/03/2006 11:29:11 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tigtog
Does anyone know a mexican eating beetle?

La cucaracha?

7 posted on 05/03/2006 11:31:39 AM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes..." - Popular Mechanics, March 1949)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
These are free.


8 posted on 05/03/2006 11:36:02 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: george76

Makes me wonder if there isn't some potential in it's cultivation, maybe energy?


9 posted on 05/03/2006 11:37:54 AM PDT by tertiary01 (The Pubs have no one to blame but themselves for their defeat if the borders are not closed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tigtog

" Does anyone know a mexican eating beetle?"

El Chupacabra


10 posted on 05/03/2006 11:40:40 AM PDT by Rebelbase ("truth is not invalidated by suppression"--nicmarlo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76
I am all for abatement of this menace. However, I see a pattern that anytime something is proposed, whether it is water conservation, new toilet seats or anything the government is paying for, the figure is always nearing 100 million. It will take multi-millions no matter what is being proposed.

And this if for an assessment of the situation only. This doesn't pay for any actual abatement. What is this being spent on exactly? What is this assessment going to consist of? How many people working on it? Folks, we need to start asking these questions before it is too late.
11 posted on 05/03/2006 11:41:36 AM PDT by auntyfemenist (Card carrying conservative, William F. Buckley fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tertiary01; forester

It sends off deep roots which help pollute the soil against the native trees and plants.

The labor and material costs are high per plant to remove.

There might be a positive use, but there are very many negatives.


12 posted on 05/03/2006 11:43:29 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: george76
Sorry, but this is just one more waste of taxpayer dollars. Tamarisk has been around since the 1920's; and eradication programs nearly as long. They haven't gotten rid of it yet, and it's so widespread that I doubt they ever will.

Here's how one worked that I observed last year: There was a pretty heavily infested lot on a creek bed by our house. A jobs corp crew came in, and in about a week, they had cut down and removed all the branches. The trees were cut off at the ground level. This year, they've all resprouted. Plus, the upper part of the creek and it's tributaries are full of tamarisk which was never removed.

The bird charge has been disproved.

Then there's the increased loss of water to evaporation, when tamarisk is removed. This piece of the water balance equation is ignored completely !!

The question that ought to be answered beforehand is this: which is the greater loss of water; that of increased evaporation losses due to less shade along river banks; or that transpired by tamarisks?

Back when I studied hydrology in college, these were thought to be more or less equal, hence most eradication programs stayed in the realm of senior thesises.

I think the government has too much money.

13 posted on 05/03/2006 11:46:42 AM PDT by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auntyfemenist

Because it uses so much water, we need to start to remove it.

You are correct...we should not just do studies for the next ten years.


14 posted on 05/03/2006 11:47:08 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: george76
The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act would provide $80 million over the next five years to assess the extent of the plants’ infestation and offer solutions.

No eradication, just 5 years of study for $80 million, delaying any resolution for 5 years while the problem gets worse.

Seems that studies are to taxpayer dollars what tamarisks are to water.

15 posted on 05/03/2006 11:51:06 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Boots

The government has too much money. We all agree with that.

Native Cottonwood trees and native Willow trees should be planted for shade.

Cutting the branches is not enough. They have to be cut and then quickly poison the stump.

Maybe this beetle will be useful...


16 posted on 05/03/2006 11:53:03 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Where did these things come from? As long as I can remember there have been Tamarisk trees in Arizona, who brought them here?


17 posted on 05/03/2006 11:54:26 AM PDT by McGavin999 (The US media is afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

How have the environmental activists come down on killing trees? They seem to resist chopping down any trees.


18 posted on 05/03/2006 11:59:31 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

The plant genus Tamarix is comprised of about 54 species native to North Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Popularly called "tamarisk" or "saltcedar," it usually grows as a woody shrub or small tree in areas where water is at or near the surface.

Starting in the 1850s, several species of tamarisk were imported to the United States as ornamentals and for use in erosion control. Since its introduction, tamarisk has quickly spread into natural wetlands, where it tends to form dense thickets along streams and springs, displacing native trees such as cottonwood, willow and mesquite. Tamarisk has invaded almost all watercourses and other wetland habitats throughout the Southwest, taking over more than one million acres of wetland.

Tamarisk is distinguished by its feathery, needle-like leaves and numerous small, pink flowers at the ends of the branches. Up to 500,000 small, windblown seeds can be produced per plant.

The tamarisk is highly adapted to arid climates. It thrives in very saline and nutrient-poor soil. During the spring it can grow as much as one foot per month. It spreads readily by seed and by root, trunk, and branch sprouts.

Tamarisk can usually out-compete native plants for water. A single, large tamarisk can transpire up to 300 gallons of water per day. In many areas where watercourses are small or intermittent and tamarisk has taken hold, it can severely limit the available water, or even dry up a water source.

Tamarisk can grow in salty soil because it can eliminate excess salt from the tips of its leaves. When the leaves are shed, this salt increases the salinity of the soil, further reducing the ability of native plants to compete. Because of its ability to spread, its hardiness, its high water consumption, and its tendency to increase the salinity of the soil around it, the tamarisk has often completely displaced native plants in wetland areas.

http://www.nps.gov/whsa/tamarisk.htm


19 posted on 05/03/2006 12:06:50 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia

From a wildlife point of view, the tamarisk has little value and is usually considered detrimental to native animals.

The leaves, twigs and seeds are extremely low in nutrients, and, as a result, very few insects or wildlife will use them.

In one study along the lower Colorado River, tamarisk stands supported less than 1% of the winter bird life that would be found in a native plant stand.

Because of the tamarisk's ability to eliminate competition and form single-species thickets, wildlife populations have dropped dramatically.

http://www.nps.gov/whsa/tamarisk.htm


20 posted on 05/03/2006 12:09:01 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson