Well, there is almost certainly some truth to both of the previous
posts here. The tree is a native, but Victor is correct in saying it
has spread to areas where it previously didn't grow.

As for the water wasting, I'm not familiar with the site Victor
describes. What I do know is, all plants transpire. Water is pulled
from the soil and evaporates from the leaves. They also create shade,
which means less water evaporates directly from the soil. If you read
the material in the ("pro-cedar") link already provided, you'll see a
suggestion (presented as fact, so, yes, i suspect a bit of propaganda
here as well) that the increased percolation will diminish over time
as the oaks and other remaining plants extend their roots to take
advantage of the extra moisture. Whether or not that is true, what I
know about plants tells me that thay get water when and where they
can, and they can't pull water from dry soil. Junipers in drought are
not using the same amount of water that they will when it's raining.
And they do not have some nefarious taproot reaching into the bowels
of the aquifer to suck it dry.

To be perfectly honest, I do not know how other species compare in
terms of amount of water that flows through them (as I suspect is true
of most, if not all, of the people who cite the juniper figures as
proof that they suck it down too vigorously). But a big red flag goes
up in my mind when I see that the non-native claim is always attached
to the water-wasting one. It suggests that people with a grudge
against the tree parrot every bad thing they hear about it without
really looking into the facts, then refer to each other for evidence.

I'm sure there are people managing their property carefully who may
have seen benefits from their efforts (which may or may not be
long-term effects), but the guys profiled in the paper do not give the
impression that they will follow suit. They acknowledge they probably
cannot kill all the "damn cedars," but they are still willing to try.
Then they want to replace them all with live oaks--I know I don't have
to explaiin the risks that go along with monoculture here. And they
want us to forget the "dumb birds" and put people first--now there's a
change in policy for you if I ever heard one. Put people first--why,
it's downright revolutionary!

As for the newspaper, they did finally contact me about the letter (in
the past they've been much more prompt about this). They always say
they are "considering publication," so you may or may not see my
response in a day or two. I'm feeling a bit less smug in my
counter-arguments than I was, but I still believe there are truths
that are being ignored, and I hope my letter prompts some people to
look into this further than they would have.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.../consumer.html