"Victor M. Martinez" wrote in message
...
Babberney wrote:
Well, now the editorial page endorses the description of this tree as
a water-wasting invasive non-native (they stopped short of agreeing

But it *is* a water-wasting invasive non-native, is it not? Before
settlers
stopped seasonal fires from occuring, this tree took over what used to be
grasslands and suffocated the native grasses that used to thrive there.
Amen
to drying the multiple springs that used to provide water for the
wildlife.

-snip-



Many juniper 'facts' are challenged he
http://juniper1.home.texas.net/cedarstuff.html

Among other tidbits, the author cites fossilized juniper pollen found in a
cave in NW Bexar county, which would suggest that they are not non-native.

Also that a study measured stemflow of water in a 10 foot juniper and found
it varied seasonally from 22 liters/day in the rainy springtime to 3
liters/day in the summer months.

I'm sure that there is pro-juniper 'spin' found on that website, but I am
sure there is a lot of anti-juniper 'spin' commonly reported. The truth is
probably in the middle somewhere.