Trees are ‘utilities’ that serve us like electricity. But we treat them as dispensable.
One way “utility” is defined by the Webster dictionary is as: “something useful or designed for use.” From the Collins dictionary we can add: “something useful to the public” and “useful or used in a number of ways.’
When most people hear the word “utility,” they think of gas, water, sewer, internet, trash removal and, of course, electricity. We rely on utilities to keep our homes warm in the winter, cool in the summer, help cook our food, remove our waste, and provide connectivity to the rest of the world, so we can learn, work, and be entertained. One could argue that of all the utilities, electricity is the most important because it allows most other services to be provided.
How should we think of a service providing air filtration, stormwater interception, oxygen production, carbon sequestration, cooling of homes and sidewalks, prevention of soil erosion, carbon storage, not to mention the intangible benefits trees provide? Perhaps it’s not unreasonable to think of trees as a public utility “useful in a number of ways”? Could this multitude of benefits position trees to rival electricity as the most important?
Utilities should be considered in combination to evaluate their contribution to our quality of life. Having water service is good, things are better with the addition of sewer, and, I think most would agree, our quality of life is further improved by electricity, gas, and internet. We value trees because they provide numerous services and improve the quality of life for the entire community. When managed appropriately, they have a low relative lifetime cost to maintain, and their ability to provide benefits grows over time with few inputs required. Every other utility service begins to deteriorate and lose effectiveness as soon as it is put into use.
Occasionally, utilities come in conflict. A water line has to be routed around a gas or a sewer line, an electrical line might cross an internet cable or, if hung too low, get in the way of a garbage truck. As a community, when utility conflicts occur, we think it is reasonable to adjust placement, so as to continue providing the same or better level or service. A decision to simply remove trees, a utility providing valuable service, is inconsistent with how we deal with any other utility conflict. Mature trees are difficult to move, but they can be pruned regularly, and, if pruning is done correctly, continue to thrive.
If a water line has to be moved because of a sewer or a gas line conflict, its size is not reduced. Unfortunately, under current practice, when mature trees are taken down when they pose a conflict with electrical transmission lines, they are not replaced at the size equivalent to provide the same level of utility service. KU has been a good community partner, sponsoring Reforest the Bluegrass among other tree planting efforts. Replacing mature canopy removed with young saplings is akin to replacing a fibre optic internet connection with dial up. Growing young trees to the point of maturity takes many years, perhaps 20 — and I would guess few people would like to go back to the speed of dial up internet of the early 2000s.
As a community, we can and should make a determination to treat the tree canopy in the same way we treat other utilities. We should not treat trees as expendable because they are relatively easy to remove. We cannot forget the growing benefits we as a community receive from the utility provided to us by the canopy of trees. We must determine a way to move forward providing safe and reliable electricity service while not sacrificing the multiple benefits the utility of trees provides to our community.
Michael Potapov is a former investment manager turned tree and nature advocate in Lexington.
