Funny you should mention that one. My parents lost most of their trees to turpentine beetles and salt spray. I've been trying to identify the survivors. As far as I can tell, one of the survivors is a Basswood...it has the seeds hanging from the funny thin leaves. I don't remember it ever producing noticeable flowers or any scent.
It's survived a lot of wind and occasional salt spray better then the maples or pines, even though none of information I've found online suggests it should do at all well in that spot.

Actually trying to decide between Tupelo and Basswood for a certain spot.

This post was edited by edlincoln on Sat, Dec 20, 14 at 10:47

That'd be a hard question to answer..and to some extent tied to geography.
I feel like from a home orchard standpoint, the amelanchiers are underused. They have care free (other than bird protection) fruit that (to me) strongly resembles blueberries with much less fuss and care than blueberries take.

Are they trees though? Serviceberry has been recommended to me, but I always thought they were bushes, which is why I stayed away from them.

Some are...some aren't..and what is the difference between a bush and tree (really?). It's a fairly arbitrary distinction.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link to Amelanchier canadensis at MoBot

For me, the difference is a tree is taller and generally either has enough space beneath the branches that you can sit in it's shade, or is conical. A shrub uses up all the space it grows in, a deciduous tree only uses up the space t's trunk occupies because it's branches are above you.

Which ones are trees?

This post was edited by edlincoln on Sat, Dec 20, 14 at 12:37

I have always thought of Basswood as being more of a weed than a desirable tree. They produce copious amounts of seed and will sprout everywhere around here.
A desirable tree to me is the Hawthorn. Beautiful flowers in the Spring. Not seen in the wild too much around here anymore, due to the Cedar rust problems. Folks just think those cute little evergreens growing in the ditches must be saved!
Also, Catalpa. the flowers are spectacular in June, but not grown too much. We have some here in Z3.

it is very interesting to me how some plants and trees that grow well and are admired in some areas are considered weeds or undesirable in others.
Here the Hawthorn is considered a 'Scrub Tree' meaning that it is the first to grow in an area that is being reclaimed by ecological succession. The wild hawthorn is considered 'weedy' in north east Ohio and is usually very thorny - I have seen thorns sticking out of thorns on top of more thorns covering every branch and even the trunks of the tree. The flowers have an unusual fragrance, strongly off putting to me. The fruit does feed wildlife, but then the thorny seedlings come up everywhere. There are cultivars of Hawthorn that don't have spines, don't set fruit but these can only be found at a garden center or nursery, not usually growing natively to an area. Not to give you a hard time about your tree choices dandy, but here in zone 5 both the Hawthorn and Catalpa are considered weed trees!
How about a nice Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum - for an underused native tree? Grows fairly quickly, good fall color, nicely shaped tree, and if you really wanted to you can make syrup from the sap. I am not aware of any bad habits Sugar Maples have other than producing seeds - seedlings which all native trees do in order to survive! I have never known it to get out of control anywhere it grows or to cause trouble of any kind, but I am sure that somewhere Sugar Maples are considered undesirable or have drawbacks - for reasons unknown to me.
There are many native trees that are underused! River Birch, Sweet Birch, Pawpaw, Beech Tree, Black Tupelo, Eastern Hemlock, Kentucky Coffee Tree, these are a few well behaved desireable natives that would work well in most landscapes.

The dilemma is always that any tree that tree that grows well in the suburban environment will sometimes spread to spots you don't want it and be deemed a "weed". The only trees that WON'T ever be considered a "weed tree" by anyone are trees that require a lot of work to keep alive...and I don't like those kinds of plants.

Sugar maples are beautiful trees and I love them, but they seem to be hard to establish in suuburban areas around here. The woolly adelgid is wiping out the Eastern Hemlock here.

I'd been considering planting hawthorn and (although it isn't native) crabapple...but there are a lot of eastern red cedar in the area. On the other hand, there is a crabapple growing wild nearby that seems healthy.

There is an old tree I think is a Basswood in my parent's yard...I see lots of seeds in the branches, but I've never seen any sign of it multiplying. Are they self fertile?

Catalpa grow wild near me...some sources say they are salt tolerant, but I don't really like them. In theory I should, they have a lot of qualities I go for, but they seem to tropical looking somehow.

I've actually been planting beech and paw paw, and considering tupelo.

This post was edited by edlincoln on Sun, Dec 28, 14 at 0:34

Thje word "weed" should not ever really be applied to plants which are native to a given locale. That's just a corruption of what weeds really are-typically non-native herbaceous, grassy, or woody species, most of which came to N. America with agriculture. So in this scenario, you might not particularly like, say, the basswood tree, but it's definitely not a "weed". That's confused thinking.

Of course, there's the ever-popular notion that a "weed" is any plant growing where some person doesn't want it to grow. That totally misses the ecological impact that true weed species have had. It's not some lighweight human notion, but rather, a real and easily demonstrated thing.

+oM

Wisconsintim, this is an odd converse to the debate I usually have. I feel the term "invasive" shouldn't be used to refer to natives. However, I have no problem using the terms "weed". The word "weed" is an older word that predates concerns about moving species to new continents. I feel it's important to have separate words for non-native species that cause ecological damage and species that mess with the planned look of our garden or are economically disruptive on our farm. Both sets of concerns are legitimate, we just have to keep track
which we are talking about. Seaside goldenrod, Northern Sea Oats, and Potao Bean growing in my cranberry bog in Plymouth would be weeds, but they would not be invasive species.

Ed, you are correct, inasmuch as the word 'weed' has a fuzzy and poorly-understood meaning. I completely agree with you that a native species-in the area to which it is native, or could conceivably become native via natural means of spread, are not and never should be called weeds. That's just wrong, and it always indicates to me that the speaker or writer is only marginally interested in plants and nature generally. I've seen, for example, prairie enthusiast hoisting white pine seedlings out of their precious plantings, cursing them as weeds. This tells me that at least for that individual, knowledge of plant succession has never entered their brain. Prairies-wherever they have existed, and certainly in relatively moist areas like S. Wisconsin, have always been intermediate stages following some cataclysmic disturbance to the site. What's more, these disturbances were almost always anthropogenic. This doesn't mean I don't like or appreciate prairies; I do. But they are but one stage on the road to a taller and more fully-developed plant community.....unless disturbance happens again and again.

The part of the world where I happen to live was covered in primarily northern hardwood forest back in the 1830s, when surveyors were criss-crossing the land and taking their notes. Did such forests burn? Yes, of course, but the fire interval was on the order of 400 years! Hardly a pyric community. Yet, I am constantly bombarded by "experts" who say this or that site "needs" to be burned in order to be ecologically correct. It is a form of madness.

Now the flatwoods of Florida? Yes, they need to burn in order to remain more or less what they are. Likewise with those relatively rare prairie patches which once existed to my south. But the native landscaping bible has tilted so far to the one side that all of this is lost in the hubbub.

So what plants "should" be growing in a given locale? Well, if you're Mr. Farmer, it's corn and soybeans, if you're Mr. Lawncare Operator, it's Kentucky bluegrass, if you're just a gardener, it;s pretty much whatever you want to do. But weeds are a more specific thing than all that. They are and will remain to me, those species that climbed aboard ships from the old world with cereal grains and other needed agricultural items from the old world. Noxious weeds are simply those with especially undesirable attributes. And as for exotic plants, they're not necessarily weeds. It really comes down to behavior of the species in its new home. But I do agree, there is and needs to be a distinction between invasive species, weeds, and plants that somehow got where somebody doesn't like them to be!

+oM

People are going to talk about what plants are most likely to invade their petunias or corn field. We need a word for those plants. The word "weed" seems a fine one. The definition "A weed is a plant growing where it shouldn't" is a nice way to hammer home the subjective aspect.

I'm inclined to see tree as the most natural/Earth Friendly/Wildlife Friendly option, but then I live in a region that was undisputed forest before Europeans came here, and live in an urban area where I'm more likely to get sick of cement then cedar. The local Audubon society has been known to create meadows when I think woods would be preferable.

Exotics really fall into three categories:
a.) Wussy plants that can't survive without human help. Can be either plants from a different zone or plants that have been bred to devote too much resources to producing flowers/fruit. No risk of becoming invasive, but get people to use a lot of pesticide and fertilizer to keep them alive. Also, wimpy plants are way too much work for me.
b.) Exotics that do really really well...these carry a huge risk of being invasive. By some definitions they *ARE* invasives, but other more restrictive definitions say a plant has to be shown to cause ecological harm to be an invasive.
c.) Sterile hybrids. These seem great, but I think they have a hidden problem. As we criss-cross the land with roads and divide it into lots, where do we think the plants to colonize new vacant lots will come from? Yards. I suspect planting sterile plants in yards can lead to less biodiversity in small green patches. (Fewer sources for different kinds of seeds in the area.) Woods aren't eternal, nor are towns. Over time we develop one area and abandon another.

An under used Native tree in My area of central Texas is Escarpment Black cherry and brumelia. I also like Toothache tree for its bark. I have some on my land and I find them gorgeous trees, but so do the deer. They are hard to establish . the birds take the berries before I can get to them and the drought has been hard on their seedling in nature. I protect every one I can find but they seem to die during the summer.

Ed, in following some of your threads, I get the sense that salt spray is a limiting factor for pretty much everything you want to do. If for no other reason than the one you mention-that basswood has performed well under such impacts-I'd say go ahead with that one. I'm a little unenthusiastic about basswood, but that's only because it's so common here. It's a great tree and can really grow to magnificent size.

+oM

A few years back we lost a a few mature, apparently healthy evergreens to hurricane propelled salt spray, so I now am paranoid about that issue. I may be overly paranoid...I don't think we've ever lost a deciduous tree to salt spray. The tree that I think is a Basswood doesn't seem that exciting to me either...I tend to think deciduous trees grown in a yard should either produce flowers or fruit, and I've never seen either on this tree. (People say Basswood have a scent, but this tree that looks like the Basswood description has never produced a scent I've noticed.) It has seemed to be unphased by salt, and hasn't lost as many limbs as the other deciduous trees.

I've decided on putting in American Persmimmon, Sassafras, Beech and Black Walnut as my deciduous trees. Considering Black Gum, Washington Hawthorne, and Crabapple if I can find an inexpensive source.

Well, to me, Elm, Basswood, Poplar, Oak(yes-even Oak!!!) among others are "weed trees". I live in Pine country and I have seen over the past 50 years the transition from Pine to Oak.

There is a very old large Kentucky Coffee tree growing in an establised arboretum park here. Its the only one I know of in the city and its quite impressive. Around Lake Ponca up by Ponca City Okla. there are several growing in the picnic area around the lake. My guess is its underused, although I could be wrong. Its native to the eastern and central US. I cannot imagine how to scarify the seeds. We had a laugh about different ways to go about it on a wildlife forum a couple years back. I suggested a belt sander with the seed positioned in a vice.

It's easy to get germination. Fill a bucket with hot water. Back when I was doing this, I used very hot water. Put seeds in water. When water is cooled all the way down to the point of safe handling, the seeds will be ready to go. Expect 100% germination, or very near that.

+oM

wow that was a quick response. Are you talking about coffee tree seeds? As easy as all that?

Yes, Kentucky Coffee tree. A former boss was nuts (bu-dum-bum) about them and had me-horticulturist-devise a strategy to grow some from seed pods he liked to collect in a local cemetery. This was way pre-internet and to tell the truth, I don't remember how I acquired this information, but to say it worked well would be an understatement. I really mean what I say about near-100% viability of these bean-like seeds. Our shop back then-these days I'm up in City Hall-had a mechanics shop, with scalding hot water available. That's the stuff I used, and there really was nothing more to it than I outlined.

Cladrastis kentukea (yellowwood) would be my choice, but my 40-foot wide lot (minus half the width of a driveway) just isn't big enough for it. I haven't been able to find many native trees with good ornamental value that are small enough to fit where I'd like to put them. I used to have a redbud in the back yard. It pretty much filled the whole space and twice pulled the power line from the house after ice storms, so I had it removed.

I've been looking at narrow-habit cultivars of various small native trees as possibilities for the back yard, such as Amelanchier canadensis 'Glenform'. I'm not entirely convinced it would stay within its advertised bounds, though.

Some sterile plants can actually spread more aggressively than fertile plants. Flowering and setting seed is a stressful process. The "energy" a plant saves when it doesn't flower is often redirected toward producing a lot of rank growth. That growth is often likely to root readily and spread vegetatively.

Woods Tea, there is a row of very narrow oak trees growing up the street, they are creating a kind of privacy screen with them. I'm not sure of the type, if they are native or not, but I googled and found some named varieties of pillar type oaks. There are so many kinds and variety of growth habit and size it might be good to check through the different ones.

Crepe Myrtle is a good narrow tree if it will grow in your zone. They are cast iron plants around here, the city plants them in street medians and along highways a lot where the conditions are horrid. If you don't violate them by yearly poodle cuts (gag) they make wonderful graceful trees with beautiful bark.

Ginko is not considered native here but it is prehistoric so maybe once upon a time, long long ago it was native here? I've always been fascinated by them, I like the yellow color, its a narrow tree, pest free and quite attractive. What do you think? Were they ever native to the US? Any fossil records?

I've seen beautiful and nicely behaved redbuds and ones that look downright awful. They seem to vary a lot, some trees get loaded with seed pods while others are clean.

Yes, Ginkgo fossils have been found throughout the U.S.

Sounds like an extinct species that needs to be reestablished, locally speaking. When I looked it up it info said it was native to China.

woops, I need to correct myself. Crepe Myrtle is not a native tree. (Asia). It started bugging me last night and looking it up I read it was introduced to America 200 years ago, that it so typifies the south, it seems like a native. Seed was given to George Washington for his plantation in 1799. Sorry, someone should have corrected me so here I am correcting myself. Trees are not really my interest. Actually, my own perennial complaint is that there are too many trees growing in this area of the US which of course doesn't mean they shouldn't be growing in other places. I say that because some people get very defensive when you say there are too many trees but in some environments that is the case.

I love ginkgos, but as far as I know they don't have any faunal associations -- no insects, birds, mammals that make any particular use of them. I have often thought of planting one, but my current thinking is that since I only have space for a tree or two, I'd rather choose ones that have some value for wildlife.

I think the columnar oaks are usually Quercus robur cultivars, non-native. Crape myrtle is also non-native.

Does everything planted in my yard have to be native? For now the answer seems to be yes. I think I will eventually ease up on this, but not until I've got more of the yard planted and I'm seeing a greater quantity and variety of wildlife (bees and butterflies in particular) enjoying it.

Whoops, bad timing, posted before I was able to see your most recent post aboute crape myrtles, TR.

I'm not sure whether we have too many trees here in Kansas City, but we definitely have too many that are much too large for where they're planted. There's a massive pin oak next door whose mid-day shade I appreciate in the summer, but it keeps us busy collecting all the stuff that falls from it. A branch from it also smashed the neighbor's garage one year during an ice storm.

My thinking is that a tree as large as pin oak doesn't belong anywhere in a neighborhood with ~5000 sq ft lot sizes.

I absolutely agree about the pin oaks Woods Tea.

A list of 10 trees people regret planting in yards.

Hackberry, Norway Maple, Silver Maple, Mimosa, Lombardy Poplar, Leyland Cypress, Pin Oak, Cottonwood, Willow, Black Locust.

I live next door to an Empire State Building sized Pin Oak to the east in front. We both hate that tree, it looks ridiculous in that sized yard, we don't like the shade or the mess. There are several up the street and I swear, every leaf seems to end up in my pocket prairie, driveway, the flat roof, gutters, courtyard and even blow inside the studio from fall until March 1.

In back is the row of volunteer hackberry trees along the fence line to the west. Those are nuisance trees around here and can quickly make housing areas look like slums if people don't stay vigilant, which they don't.

Anytime we talk of moving these trees are the #1 reason on our list. We've spent a lot of money with tree trimmers.

The thing that galls me is how many people think of all trees with a kind of sacred awe and think its a sin to take one down no matter what, especially an oak. I don't have that reverence. A tree in the wrong spot or which drops ridiculously easy to grow seeds by the hundreds can be a huge noxious weed from my perspective. Hackberry trees in urban situations here are definitely noxious weeds.

Does everything have to be native?

That notion varies a lot from one person to the next. There are some who are quite rigid about this and others not so much, which includes myself. I'm not a zealot and plant native plants that don't grow in my immediate region. Some people are quite strict even on that point and come up with a radius around themselves and will only plant natives from that small area.

I have several native plants that are not native to Oklahoma, mostly my plants are native to Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Kansas and there abouts. I like certain kinds of plants so my focus is not to be regionally native, its based more on personal taste and aesthetics. I recently added an Ephedra equistrina which is native to Mongolia so obviouslhy I do grow some non-natives. I have an Ephedra viridis native to America as well but its not native here on the plains. The Oklahoma panhandle has some desert plants so if I want to be really technical and say its native to Oklahoma, the panhandle comes in handy, conditions are much dryer there and it was part of the dust bowl where they farmed that dry arid land. But heck, those state lines aren't exactly 'native' are they? I try many plants here based on what I like, some make it, some don't.

If I had a prairie, I'd approach it entirely differently sticking to prairie natives even to the extent of trying to establish a prairie dog town. I love prairie dogs. As it is, all I have is a large yard.

Many plants have been brought in to this country and become naturalized, causing no problems and some have prove quite beneficial to local wildlife. The honey bee and several fruit trees were brought to the 'New World' after all and some native crops exported to Europe.

I've heard stories that verge on the ridiculous about zealots culling out non native plants in certain areas, too long to post here. I've met native 'snobs' as well.

I used to be on another forum which asked the question "Where do you fall on the Native Plant Scale?". It brought up some interesting discussions. Arguments can get quite heated.

Tex, I wonder what the neighbors would say about prairie dogs ? :)

Well barron, I don't much care what they think. Right now I'm in the .000001% of people in this city who do not own a dog or dogs, not to mention the irritating fact that right now I'm being overrun by fluffy cats wandering into my property 3 and 4 at a time from irresponsible cat owners. Suddenly they seem to be everywhere, I'm at wits end on this. I figure if I can tolerate their animals, they can darn well tolerate mine on an acreage, a situation which isn't likely to be in the cards $$ anyhow. Once thing is sure, I won't allow any callous murdering rednecks with guns in to take up the disgusting sport of shootin' prairie dogs like happens legally around here. Its sickening.

TR, that cat phenomenon is happening here too. We've got em coming and going from our garage area-the doors don't work and the thing stays open 24/7-and it is indeed the sign that society is now comprised largely of idiots, IMHO!

Also, total agreement about that disgusting "sport" out your way regarding prairie dogs. Even have a brother in law who does that out at his Montana place. And oh yeah, he's Wisconsin redneck through and through.

I don't think rigidly trying for perfection-as regards a natives-only policy-is helpful in the long run. We are simply not going to get back to 1750, or even 1850, no matter what. Better to move ahead in time, realizing that some things we cherish will be lost, while at the same time, new and unexpected vistas will unfold, that please us immensely. Up on my land-a native plant community par excellence-one of my favorite trees to plant out in the field that I'm reforesting is Norway spruce. Obviously not native, but the species has been here so long, its damaging potential is well understood.....and nil. I would actually like for the tree to naturalize in my area there, but I know too, from long-term observation, that it mostly will not. Just doesn't happen very much. Purist attitudes about this make me tired, at least across most of N. America. If you really are in a pristine site-boy there's a word that gets overused-then yes, beware of messing things up, absolutely. But we're mostly not talking about that.

+oM

However, please be aware that Norway spruce IS invasive in the Northeast and Canada. It's another tree that shades so densely that very little can grow under it, so its impact when it naturalizes is large.

No, everything doesn't have to be native, but do note that many species that were used for years without impact are starting to show up uninvited. Cherry laurels come to mind. Also, just as purebred natives are valued as larval host plants, hybrids of both native and nonnative parentage are often selected by insects as host plants, but the larvae don't find them palatable, and they die. Hybrid lupines, for example, are causing the Karner blue butterfly to decline because of this process. Their preferred host plant, Lupinus perennis (Eastern bluebonnet) is also declining precipitously.

And, yes, it's much more important to plant natives next to a significant natural area than it is in an urban townhouse yard.

And again.............there's invasive, and then there's invasive. To worry about the impact of Norway spruce on the landscape is akin to being blissfully unaware the problem even exists with any species, so unlikely is it to cause actual trouble and so utterly similar is its ecological niche to our native spruces, none of which, BTW, have quite the robustness and general vitality of this Eurasian species. Further, where NS is found in combination with other conifers, its crown is nowhere near as wide and shade-inducing as those you see out in the open in yards and parks.

Yes, I'm letting my liking for this species show...I've never denied it on GW-but to place fear in the minds of people over this tree, when we are having absolutely ruinous things happening with Callery pear, buckthorn, garlic mustard, and so on, is exactly the pointless kind of thing that makes this restoration ecologist explode-almost.

So let's see, a Norway spruce has managed to seed into a NE woods (It happens here too, just not much). So what impact do we have? Is it crowding out a native white spruce? How would you know this? I just can't agree at all, carlaclaws. I can read a list from the state too. I've got something called experience though-maybe you do too- and that experience tells me that what you suggest is at best a conflation with true, invasive problems.

+oM

It makes a big difference whether you are thinking in terms of a typical yard in the city as opposed to a restoration/maintenance of an undeveloped natural landscape. I am against planting imported species that are well known offenders anywhere. Right now I'm looking into Russian Sage, for example, since that came up recently and I hadn't thought about it in regard of invasiveness in the long term.

I'm disinterested or bored with sterile hybrids or exotics that are produced and marketed as bedding plants based flower size, form etc but don't believe they are a threat except in the fact that people seem to prefer these sissy plants-- the result being more and more are being added at the expense of regional natives which I would rather see more of. The result is boring, unimaginative and extremely artificial -- each part of the country looks much the same as the next in so far as gardens are concerned. It is as if they all sprang out of a Home Depot, Lowe's or Walmart which I find creepy and more than a bit ridiculous. Knockout roses come to mind.

On the other hand, some named native plants have also entered the trade providing a 'this plant is acceptable as an appropriate garden choice' nudge encouraging people to plant natives so I am, currently at least, thinking of this as a good thing. Reduced size, leaf color or other attributes seen in some named 'improved' varieties of switchgrass, bluestem, native shrubs etc are examples. Some of these plants in their natural state would overwhelm an average yard, two good examples are switchgrass and lantana. On the other hand, it would be too expensive to attempt a restoration project of any size with such plants so again its a matter of choice when planting an attractive yard in the city as opposed to restoration/maintenance of a large scale acreage where seeding with native species would be desirable.

A city yard is an individual thing and should look interesting, compliment the home and be at its visual best as far as plant selections are concerned but it is by definition an artificial situation and can never be otherwise so I take that into account.

Does it have to be native? No, but if you are claiming to have a native pocket prairie or a native landscape I think it should be predominantly native, say at least 95%?

Invasive is often used in the wrong way but the term can sometimes be used appropriately when referring to a native species. Its usually a matter of a serious imbalance such as what has been called the 'green glacier' of cedar trees taking over the prairies or deer populations left unchecked.

I like the idea of planting aggressive natives in yards because I kind hope they will spread to local median strips, vacant lots, and buffer zones along the coast. People often seem to assume that the places that are wildlife habitats were always virgin forest and the places that are settled will always be. Where I live., most of the woods used to be farms. What places are habitats for wildlife changes over time. When a new piece of land is allowed to go back to being forest, where do the plants that recolonize it come from? Often seeds from local yards delivered by birds, I suspect. Sterile hybrids can't do that, and I suspect lead to less biodiversity in small local pockets of woods. "Sissy" plants also tend to require a lot of fertilizer and pesticide. I also kind of want the suburban lots I have control of to be viable stopping places for migrating birds and butterflies.

edlincoln, thats funny. A friend from Arkansas was visiting last summer. He wanted me to ID a couple of annual flowering 'weeds' I'm growing on purpose. He says they are whats invading his fescue grass where his cattle graze and he can't get rid of em. One of them is annual bitterweed (Helenium amarum) which is one of those little bouquet type plants that indicates over-grazed areas but which looks very good on no irrigation or in difficult areas. They give me a good low growing yellow filler plants of solid yellow from spring to freeze. I bought the original three plants at Farmer's Market years ago, now its here to stay. Another good filler is Lazy Daisy. A small pkt of seeds thrown out 2 years ago has resulted in some 6" tall mini seas of drought hardy white. These have all ended up way down the street, along with some liatris and Rudbeckia hirta in harsh neglected areas, along curbs and in sidewalk cracks where weed whackers aren't used. I'm expecting to see bluestem as well along with some other grasses.

If you ask me, among the worst weeds of all is bermuda grass and all those lawns. I would add that a sea of red cedar is just as much of a monoculture as bermuda, nothing grows under it, rich plant diversity disappears, what was once prairie becomes impassible & useless and the aquifer negatively affected -- I'm glad the alarms are sounding off about it. Some people are starting to make getting rid of them it into thriving businesses, financial motivation is always good, whatever does the job I say.