Water, fertilizer and minor ingredients such as colorants, anti-corrosive material, thickeners (clay or natural gum), stabilizers and bactericides,Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2048
Printable View
Water, fertilizer and minor ingredients such as colorants, anti-corrosive material, thickeners (clay or natural gum), stabilizers and bactericides,Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2048
You're seriously suggesting that CA needs to "work with federal government"? You really have been asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by hercule33
As far as codes go they've done a very good job of upgrading them. The problem is that the cost of retrofitting existing housing is astronomical. Even if the state were to subsidize most homeowners would not or could not do it.
I agree the PUC has been asleep.
At this point I don't see how the state could do more to warn people of the danger of fire--watch TV, read a newspaper, look at your news feed, you can't avoid the subject.
The red shit is fertilizer. Turns into concrete when dry. Pilots love to drop that shit on people and cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
My understanding is that some of the retardant constituents are becoming detectable in surface water downstream. I think this is due to improved water assay tech.
At least we agree on the PUC being asleep. And yes I am suggesting that California work with feds to get us more money and to increase fire safety on federal land. Like you pointed out, we as Californians pay more than our fair share in federal taxes. And big bonus points if that could have been done pre-2017 before huge wild fires ravaged California for multiple years in a row. Plus I have a feeling it would have been easier to get funding from the Obama administration that the current one :)Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Maybe it would be better if they didn't fertilize the shit that'll grow up after the fire and then inevitably burn again.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
When they kill the vegetation, they get massive landslides/mudslides instead of fires..Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
i believe that the argument is that the PUC has not necessarily been asleep, but has been an enabler.Quote:
Originally Posted by hercule33
The state government has been working with the federal government and receiving $$ for fuels reduction and other wildfire mitigation (e.g., roof retrofits) projects for decades. $$ is for work in non-federal lands. Congress (federal) often reduces funding amounts during annual budget negotiations. Until recently, the federal government would not allow wildfire mitigation activities undertaken on federal lands by non-federal agencies. This has been a known problem for a long time; known by governors, state legislatures, and federal legislatures. The state government (Calfire, which reports to the governor, i.e., is a dept of the Natural Resources Agency, a state cabinet-level department) has been negotiating on agreements with the federal government to change the federal policy for over a decade. This is now something that is occurring at a pilot project-level.
One of the more substantial STRATEGIC items recently done was to tie the state's water system to forest health and wildfires in the watersheds. That has allowed for more $$ to be dedicated for mitigation and planning efforts under the federal and state water projects because they must consider and improve forest health.
and the loss of top soil. There's a NGO that has a strong reputation from stopping the USFS from implementing post-fire salvage lumber and forest recovery activities until after the topsoils has left (and often invasives have become well established).Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
It will grow again, and fast, no matter what. It's the life cycle of fire adaptive vegetation. Manzanita especially. It has evolved to out compete it's neighbors with fire. It literally burns it's competitors for water and light to death, and regenerates from the root ball almost instantaneously. It's a remarkable plant.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
But also, we have to contend with non-native invasives (like Cheatgrass and Eucalyptus) that have changed whole ecosystems in a very short time, and the subsequent fire impact of their presence.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/F9hQLAVhWnL56/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
well played, Ma'amQuote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
As mentioned, it’s basically fertilizer - phosphates. Which is why it’s not supposed to be dropped directly on standing or moving surface water. Drift and runoff happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
As opposed to bare ground that would erode easier when it rains or during snow melt? Besides, you need something to thicken the water dropped so that it doesn’t just evaporate or run off the vegetation. Retardant is more effective than plain water most of the time, and you can see the red from the air so you can tell where it’s already been dropped. Not to say that plain water dropped directly in a fire isn’t helpful, just that retardant has a greater range of effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
The steep south facing slope of Donner Ridge above Donner Lake was never reseeded and is still largely bare 60 years after it burned.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
Very good article about what CA is and is not doing tactically and strategically to mitigate fire danger.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...mainstage_lead
Press release for new 220k acre forest restoration project
https://yubanet.com/regional/innovat...ver-watershed/
This seems like the settlement is small compared to the damage done, but I suppose it’s better than nothing.
https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/14...fire-lawsuits/
The other day I was thinking about how, back in my days in the game, it wasn’t unusual for power lines to start fires. Happened all the time, but climate change, fuel loading increases, and expansion of the wildland-urban interface has suddenly made that source of ignitions a super-serious problem. I think maybe in the past outfits like SCE and PG&E just blew off veg maintenance because the fires caused were usually small and easily dealt with, so it was cheaper just to pony up for the costs of the small fires (and pass the savings on to shareholders) rather than do the maintenance.
I live in the WU “intermix” with PGE distribution lines running through private properties. 5 yrs ago, my neighbors were all surprised when PGE had crews actually trimming or felling trees. The previous decade, trees would get tagged but never trimmed/removed. Prior to that, there’s spotty memory of pge veg maintenance on the distribution lines.
it may not be red flag conditions or meet PG&E criteria but it’s windy as fuck above 5000’ from Big Trees to Bear Valley and above right now
That $360M is only for public entities, no other claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
Here is the newest twist with homeowners insurance in CA. Owners getting cancelled because of the overall wildfire risk in their zipcode (not new), owners only able to get fire coverage from the California FAIR plan (not that new but it is happening more and more), property gets inspected as part of starting out with the CA FAIR plan coverage, inspector finds single pot plant or pot farm (permitted at local and state-level), and owner gets coverage under the CA FAIR plan cancelled. Under the CA FAIR plan, a property being used for any purpose that is in violation of federal law is not eligible for coverage. This is going to be a big deal in some areas of the state.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using TGR Forums mobile app
Here we go again: PG&E warns of potential power shut-offs Wednesday and Thursday
It's cheaper to pick off customers then to fix the problems. Everybody already hates PG&E, and they are likely to be sold or broken up shortly, so might as well pillage the business for as much as they can before the executtives skip town (or get tarred and feathered.)
it looks like "the suck" is going to begin for me tomorrow morning. we're currently only forecasted for wind with moderate humidity. no NWS-issued wind advisory, red flag warning, or anything like that. teledad may have fresh snow on the ground at his house when he looses power.
NWS is predicting another dry north wind event next monday! yee-haw!!!
At least here in soCal we have a little rain, if nothing else, at least there is moisture in the air.
it rained up to 0.25" here last night, it's been lightly snowing at donner pass. we have no red flag warning (or wind advisory), humidity is in the upper 30's, and PG&E is scheduled to cut power in the next hour. there are areas nearby that have been under a red flag warning since yesterday (and no rain) that have not been predicted to lose power.
our power was scheduled to be cut at ~7am. PG&E has now re-scheduled it for ~11am. but by 6-ish, PG&E had not updated their re-schedule timing and all the schools had cancelled for the day and many local businesses had already made the call to not open for the day. and adding to the fun, some of the local area will not lose power. so there are bizes open, but employees need to figure out what to do about their kids who's schools have been cancelled for the day.
my current theory is that there are some major vulnerabilities that PG&E has discovered (or known about) in some of its transmission or localized distribution systems that it has not been able to address. i'm curious is this is going to go on (regardless of relative humidity) until fuels moisture reaches a certain level or some other threshold is met that PG&E has not been very forthcoming about.
good times
And PGE just cancelled the outage in my area. :sigh:
Is it still burning, or a big mud pit? Congrats on some rain/snow.
Mud pit. Raining pretty hard right now.
California bans insurers from dropping policies.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business...238077219.html
Only in the areas there were fires in 19. But the California insurance market is a major mess. It’s a pretty basic problem that highlights a bad case of government interference and over regulation. Tell insurers they can’t charge more, then mandate certain super expensive coverages (36 months of alternative living expense), almost mandate full replacement cost, etc. of course the insurers stop writing policies. Insurers are also just completely pulling out of the state. You can’t tell insurers they have to insure a house for $1,000 a year when that house is likely to incur losses of $1,500 a year and expect them to stick around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
So .... if we got rid go all insurance, would that dissuade people from building explosively combustible residences in known fire traps? For that matter, live more healthily, drive more safely, etc, etc?
No, people will build were ever it is reasonable to build. Some areas ha e more exposure then others, but all places ahve their own issues, being floor, tornado, fire, asshole neighbor, et al. There is no safe place to build, just so e areas are less safe then others.
Just a side note, but the insurance companies are not losing money insuring these homes. First off, they are insured against many of these loses, and secondly, the recover nearly all their loses from lawsuits against the cause of the fire, in California's case, the utilities. Let's just say Edison International's is not losing money.
"The insurance companies in California lost more money in 2017 -2018 as they made from 1991-2016. From the NYT 12/5:
The state’s homeowners insurers lost a total $20 billion in the 2017 and 2018 wildfires, according to an analysis published in October by Milliman, an actuary and consulting firm. That’s twice the industry’s cumulative profits since major wildfires in 1991. A line of business that was until recently profitable is now unprofitable, the authors wrote, 'exposed to a severe peril that is neither easily measured nor fully understood.' " As far as reinsurance the reinsurance companies are raising their rates and the homeowners' insurers can't pass the cost to rate payers without approval of the insurance commissioner.
As far as recovering their losses from PG&E, the settlement announced today will go to victims, some govt agencies, and of course lawyers. None is intended for insurance companies. They are supposed to cover their payouts with premiums. If they fail to charge enough (which of course is controlled by the insurance commissioner) that's their problem.
Where I live, the heartbreaking stories are multi-decade retired homeowners that have used a single insurer for those decades and are now living on ssd or ssdi that are losing their coverage....
Typically partially reinsured but still significant losses. Almost no one fully reinsures. Secondly, the utilities, or any liable party “only” owes ACV, not replacement, not alternative living expense, code upgrades, etc. Further they have to pay someone (adjusters, lawyers, accountants, and we aren’t cheap) to subrogate all those claims. So a first party insurance company is lucky to recover 25-30%, if the utility doesn’t go bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by hutash
The insurers are not party to that suit but still suing as far as I know. Insurers are entitled to recover the acv.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
An article, in an interesting format, about eucalyptus and fire in California.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ironment-comic
Just goes to show how emotional these issues can get.
It's not just eucalyptus. the native grasses of CA were drought adapted and stayed green all summer--presumably less flammable. The "golden" hills are covered with introduced grasses that crowded out the native plants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
People have also got used to the idea that forests are dense growths of trees you can barely walk through, let alone drive a covered wagon through. They get upset when they find out what forest thinning for fire prevention actually means, even though they can't get insurance.
currently, the insurance companies do not seem to care whether private property meets (or exceeds) the 100-foot defensible space requirements.
regarding that comic, something worth mentioning was that part of that project proceeded with federal FEMA $$. there were a lot of problems with the euc projects in the east bay hills. one of the bigger problems: the biomass of the eucs would mostly remain in place (chipped) and not be hauled away. another was that the NGO established in support of the project was lead by the contractor that helped to develop/plan the projects with the UC, who was also known to be awarded the competitive bids to complete the work, which had previously been documented to not implement the project/treatment that they had developed.
Same thing all over the west. Death to cheatgrass.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
FixedQuote:
People have no idea that forests are not naturally dense growths of trees you can barely walk through, let alone drive a covered wagon through. They get upset when they find out what forest thinning for fire prevention actually means, even though they can't get insurance.
i missed that point earlier about forest density. lots of truth to that. one of my adjacent property neighbors, a boomer and (now admittedly misinformed) treehugger... she and her husband had the most minimum clearance necessary in the early 70's to build their home in a dense pondo stand. 45 years later, that stand of trees grew w/o any efforts made to thin, until all the trees (over 70 on a half-ish acre) died from pine beetle. The dead trees were harvested a few years ago and that half acre (no maintenance done since the timber harvest) is now filling in with scotch broom.... good times!