Stand up for trees

Dear Editor,

In the past several weeks I've read and hard statements made in your paper regarding trees and their usage of water that I feel are not accurate. It's time someone stands up for our woody friends that work so hard for us throughout the entire year.

There is more and more evidence that many "historical" references to the number or lack thereof of trees in the Great Plains are either disrespectful of true pre-European impact, or are simply exaggerated for impact.

After these stories are referenced a few times, they have become "historical fact."

There is an article to be released in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation this winter that indicate that nearly all of the mature woodys in the Riparian Corridors were removed by Gold Rush traffic long before white settlement occurred in Kansas and Nebraska. So, the next time someone tells you that the Republican River was treeless before the '35 flood, take them to the McCook museum -- look at the flood pictures.

What are those large objects floating down the river with roots attached to them?

Fewer trees? Yes. Treeless? No way!

The Gazette reported in the Oct. 7 issue that most producers at the NRD meeting agreed that the water the state of Nebraska is to deliver to Kansas would be available if the trees along the Republican River were controlled.

I read this paragraph to Kate Dwire, Riparian ecologist with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Laramie, Wyo.

Her reply to me was that Texas has spent millions of dollars removing riparian trees and has, of yet, no proof that this practice frees up water for crops.

As far as trees needing 48 acre-inches, grass 36-acre inches and corn 24 acre inches, I wonder if we are comparing apples to apples.

I have a feeling that those figures apply to 12 months of usage for grass and trees. I'm guessing that the corn figure of 24 inches is for the growing season (approximately May-September). Are we to assume that no evapotranspiration occurs on the corn ground from September through May?

My point is this -- trees use water, but their benefits to man and wildlife far outweigh the bad.

Take a drive to California and pay special attention to the Bald Mountains in Nevada along I-80. they weren't always bald. They were all denuded during the gold rush and our expansion to the West Coast. What a lovely sight. Surely we've learned from our past mistakes.

Thank you,

Bruce Hoffman

McCook