The "water thief" concept is a bizarre one for me. I understand removing
invasive non-native species that can dominate riparian zones - tamarisk for
example - but just whose water is being stolen? Cattle? Irrigators? And
who had it before cattle and irrigators? Buffalo and jackrabbits? What is
the water balance between what used to be available to streams and basins
(i.e. fish) before settlement and now. Is juniper invasive in sage? It
would seem they'd have very different water requirements.

I recall that BC watershed study. It's been used to promote logging in city
watersheds around here. It requires very skilled forestry and limited entry
to work right.



"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

I have talked to a farmer in South Africa who
was not allowed to plant trees in a riparian zone because of the amount
of water they would consume.

The one I saw was they were removing non-natives in Sought Africa which
sucked
up water and crowded out Natives!

In eastern Oregon, juniper is well known as a water thief. It's a major
effort, but watershed improvement projects often involve Juniper
eradication. It's expensive, because the trees are small, the wood is
inferior and there is no market for it. It is possible to substantially
enhance stream flows, but it involves killing off thousands of acres of
juniper.

Willow is another heavy water user. When pioneers encountered a seep or
bog, it was common to plant a willow in it to dry it up.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc