On 12 Nov 2002 07:58:34 -0800, (Larry Harrell)
wrote:

(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
(Larry Harrell) wrote in message . com...

Sequoias do look nice for quite a long time but, at some point, the
top will die and you'll have a scraggly, scruffy-looking fat tree (not
unlike an aging biker G ). Redwoods are very poor trees to use for
landscaping. They grow fast and big but, the worst thinga about them
is that the roots will buckle sidewalks and foundations while needing
vast amounts of water. I really hate it when I see redwoods and alders
planted as landscaping in Sacramento G.

I could understand Giant Sequoia in Sacramento. But I'm having
difficulty envisioning Coastal Redwood the isn't it way too dry? As
for alders...I suppose along steams or rivers, where the floods could
wash them out.G

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Yep, it IS way too dry and hot for Redwood trees in Sacramento. Could
landscapers be liable for damage caused by redwoods? Why not plant
drought-resistant native trees for landscaping instead of
water-intensive species? Seems like people do not realize that drought
will be a constant companion for all of us in the West.

Larry

Larry,
The question is not hot, but dry. When I lived in Sacrament for seven
years, dry was not a problem. I bought a townhouse. The next day, I
went out to the alley in back to use my water connection. I met my
neighbor and we discovered that we shared a single pipe.How come?
Water was not metered and the contractor saved a few bucks. I don't
know if that situation continues today, but watering a Ss would not
have been a problem then. Just set up artificial fog. don't get me
started. I later worked for the Bureau of Reclamation. Take a look at
the "Law of the River", the Colorado River Compact, and Reclamation
Law in the West, generally. You will be in for an exciting time. Oh
yes, I am a forester, but I spent many of my (non) productive years as
a policy analyst.