Despite the original posters overly extensive post, with certain questionable content, the central point is still quite vaild. We as a nation spend more money on grass than on any other crop. That by itself should be reason enough. Read up on the history of lawns and you'll find that they were orginally created as a means of demonstrating wealth (aka, I have this big area and I can afford to do nothing with it except grow grass I can't eat) Regarding the comments of junegem13 and zachslc, you might want to read up on the legal history of this movement. As it turns out, most weed laws (ones based on hight, not on noxious weeds) are unconstitutional. Nonetheless, if you are in a city or subdivision and decide to do a wildflower meadow where there is not an reasonable ordinance, then you should notify your neighbors and the city about why you are doing and the legal preceedants. The EPA has all this information. Regarding property values, that was the original complaint neighbors made against one landowner when she converted her lawn into meadow. When they were unable to demonstrate an actual decrease in property values, the city ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Afterwards, the neighbors decided if they couldn't beat her that they'd join her and replace their own yards with meadows. Property values in that one neighborhood are now some of the highest in the city (Specific names and places, are available if you want them). Time and time again, lawn alternatives done correctly have shown to raise values, not lower them. In Charlottesville, VA local government is working on an ammendment to exclude native meadows from our weed ordinance. Other cities are doing the same very quicky, especially since the weed ordinance as written by many localites constitutes a legal liability to local governments.

First some questions; their answers might pull up to the forefront in your realization what you probably already know needs to be done. * Does the pool leak? * If the debri is kept cleaned away, and you are able to keep the pool serviced and maintained properly, will it then be adequate for the needs you and your family have concerning a pool? * Does the pool hold a high enough place in you and your family's priorities to justify the bite out of you budget that any major and minor repairs the pool may presently or in the near future cost? * Are the apple trees the only trees which need to be removed for the pool area's benefit? * Will you be happier if the pool is brought up to a better level of enjoyment, even if that will require the apple trees being remove, Or will you be happer to keep the apple trees for preserving some of the "history of the place;" even if, that would mean the pool had to be filled in with dirt? ******************** As per your question about topping the trees to make them short enough for you to reach the fruit. That would set them up to be invaded by pests and for the trees to decline and die soon anyway. Even if the pest and fungi did not invade, the topped trees could no longer reach enough light to feed their root systems and to stay strong and healthy. ***************** As to the issue of the apple trees being a part of the history of the place. In the condition they are in right now are they really representing their history. Orchards are usually taken care of, and owners of orchards keep the woods and volunteer seedlings at bay. The condition you describe that these remaining apple trees are currently growing in, sounds like they are a far cry from what they historically used to be. The damage from years of neglect can not be restored in the way you are thinking. If so, you would have to do what ever it takes to preserve the trees. That would mean clearing away all the trees, brush, and overgrowth from around them and return their environment back to an orchard conditon. That means the woods must be kept back and out; the swimming pool must be filled-in or removed since it is not appropriate to be positioned so close to the small orchard that its dropping fruit can render the pool into a state that cannot be kept and maintained. Even then the apple trees could not be retuned to their lost years and the roles they represented in their past history.

First, all trees have litter. Evergreen trees (like Sumac, Ficus, pine, etc.,) produce litter nearly every day, all year long. Deciduous trees lose their leaves during a two to three week period in the fall/winter and are done 'till the next year. So, your choices will depend on whether you can tolerate leaves (and/or seed pods) all year or for a brief period. One tree that does well in a lawn situation as long as it is deep watered occasionally is the Chinese Pistache. This grows into a stately tree about 30 feet tall and wide, perhaps a bit bigger. It's big draw, besides the shade, is its brilliant fall color. It is one of the few trees that gives you the reds and oranges. Another choice could be the Sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo), or Indian Rosewood. It has a more vertical growth habit than the Pistache and is considered semi-evergreen, losing some of its leaves in January only to leaf out again in March. A tree I especially like is the Chitalpa (Chitalpa tashkentensis) which produces clusters of slightly fragrant, tubular, light pink flowers all during the warm months that hummingbirds love. It is sterile and therefore does not produce seeds. It is deciduous in the winter and would allow the sun's rays to warm your home when its chilly outside. Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parvifolia) is a good shade tree with small dark green leaves. It produces small papery seeds that do not blow in the wind and do not need to be raked in a lawn situation. It is semi-evergreen and has interesting jigsaw-puzzle bark. I would not recommend ash, cottonwood, or pecan due to their excessive water needs. I hope this helps. Others may have more suggestions.

Wow, gldno, you've done some research! Yep, we get a whiff of the Gulf Stream warmth here, though we already had a first frosty night. You'd be amazed if you checked the climate of NW Norway! My berries are red-orange, the trees really look lovely when full of them. I usually cook them with apples, but this year the apple harvest has been poor. Other than that, I've got pears, cherries, gooseberries, red and black currants, strawberries, and I'm trying to grow grapes (first year, a very hardy Latvian variety named Zilga.) I've worked for one summer as a farm harvester in Minnesota, so it was interesting to compare what grows where. The farm grew many things that I could only grow in a greenhouse, such as eggplant, chiles, basil, zucchini. Things that were difficult for them included fruit trees and onions. Natalie, I've never been to Belarus. I guess you miss it much.