We need to destroy America in order to save it.

Sure a tree will harm a foundation or upturn sidewalks, but levees are just dirt. Trees hold dirt. These engineers are trying to keep it simple, but with simpleheaded thinking.

Why not plant trees on the levees? Trees with excellent, deep and broad root structure.

Didn't Reagan say trees cause pollution?

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Reagan was a corporate puppet for the the bankers.
Just like Obama.

"Didn't Reagan say trees cause pollution?"
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
#4 | Posted by 726

"Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," he opined. A little later, environmental scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right. In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes - two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate."

"America's Great Smoky Mountains are supposed to take their name from the photochemical smog released by millions of hectares of hardwoods"

Trees are only good for making baseball bats and firewood.

Trees are only good for making baseball bats and firewood.

#7 | Posted by fwthom

Don't forget toothpicks!

Notification was sent out that on the Oachita River, that its possible trees upto 100ft from the levee will be removed. Haven't recieved any notification about it on the Atchafalaya.

This plan which was legislated by the U.S. Congress will utterly destroy the beauty of these scenic
rivers in many areas..

'Nature is the Enemy"

Army Corps of Engineers

ACE has traditionally been the sledgehammer to accomplish work deemed vital to somebody's re-election where the work could get held up by proper planning,EAs, budgets or local opposition.

#6 | Posted by KBM at 2009-06-10 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag: Fun at parties.

"partially right."

Yeah - 1% right, and 99% wrong.

All I know, from experience, is that the more trees you have on an embankment the better. The roots stabilize the ground and prevent erosion. All the "evidence" given in the article for cutting down trees seems to be about making it easier to see what's going on with the levee, not that the trees themselves are causing a problem. So, the Feds are mandating the spending of more money to "fix" a problem that may not even exist.

Obama's fault - he now controls the corps. Obama hates trees!

So, the Feds are mandating the spending of more money to "fix" a problem that may not even exist.
#13 | Posted by regime_change

You just summed up US domestic policy for the past 50 years...

FYI - levees are usually constructed with sheet piling or some other form of piling which can be similarly affected by tree roots as your house slab or driveway.

I would much rather have the trees than the stupid mud banks that channel the river now. Who gives a shit if they fail again? Not you tree huggers.

Al Gore to the rescue....

uhhh... where is he?

"Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do," he opined. A little later, environmental scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right. In hot weather, trees release volatile organic hydrocarbons including terpenes and isoprenes - two molecules linked to photochemical smog. In very hot weather, the production of these begins to accelerate."

"America's Great Smoky Mountains are supposed to take their name from the photochemical smog released by millions of hectares of hardwoods"

www.guardian.co.uk

Is this the point you were trying to make?

#6 | Posted by KBM at 2009-06-10 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

OMG!!!!

Photochemical SMOG!?!?!?! Are you serious!!! HOLY SHIT!!!.......that stuff is a killer!

Lock yourself in a garage full of auto emissions and I'll do the same except with 'photochemical smog'.

Let's see whose alive after 30 mins.

Al Gore to the rescue....

uhhh... where is he?

#18 | Posted by takitez

No money for him there! He only shows up if he get paid.

I always thought trees, shrubs and grass strengthen hills and prevent mudslides.

2 | Posted by grumpy_too

Do you have an engeneering degree?

ACE has traditionally been the sledgehammer to accomplish work deemed vital to somebody's re-election where the work could get held up by proper planning,EAs, budgets or local opposition.

#10 | Posted by northguy3

Prove it.

I have worked with the Corp and if you think they can do what they want without following the letter of the law you don't know what you are talking about.

I always thought trees, shrubs and grass strengthen hills and prevent mudslides.

#21 | Posted by nutcase

Not if the roots get under the foundation. Look what happens to a sidewalk when a big tree root goes under it.

Chicken,

Take a look at the Kissimmee River in FL. The ACE straightened it, now they're working with Southwest FL Water Management to, um, make it crooked again. The point is, despite man's laws that they may have abided, they didn't understand Nature's law, and that a river is crooked for a reason. Straighten it, and it will overflow the lake or ocean it dumps into, and carry too much sediment or other effluent into it. Man thought he could improve on Nature, and now has to eat crow and spend dough to get it back to the way it was before. The ACE is notorious for doing things like this. There are plenty of smart engineers. The problem is when they think they are smarter than Nature.

The ACE is notorious for doing things like this.There are plenty of smart engineers. The problem is when they think they are smarter than Nature.

#26 | Posted by regime_change

I agree, But they only work within law/regulation. Do not blame the Corps, blame the lawmakers. They really are a good group of people.

So, law is supposed to do the research?
People can do plenty of stupid things that are legal.
The point is to do what's right.
It's not about being good or bad, I'm not making a moral judgment.
I think the institution is flawed, has too much power, and doesn't have a real check or balance to it (other than what's "legal," perhaps).

I mean, you can be sitting there on your property, watching some cheerful, polite crew cut down your 250 year old oak tree all because it's too close to a levee and they think it may be a problem in the future--but I don't think you'd feel too good about it, and I don't think it would be the right decision to cut it. And this would be legal, but not right.

Cottonwoods? California? Must be Sacramento.

"People can do plenty of stupid things that are legal."

Like post on blogs.

I mean, you can be sitting there on your property, watching some cheerful, polite crew cut down your 250 year old oak tree all because it's too close to a levee and they think it may be a problem in the future--but I don't think you'd feel too good about it, and I don't think it would be the right decision to cut it. And this would be legal, but not right.

#28 | Posted by regime_change

So what would you do, shoot them? The law is on their side.