California is Burning (Again)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

My point is not whether or not local jurisdictions are doing a good job, it's that much of the responsibility for strategic planning falls under the purview of local jurisdictions, not the state.
In terms of long term strategic planning, the state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases leads the nation.
You keep talking about strategic planning--give us an example that you think the state should have done and didn't.

---

In my opinion, strategic planning falls at all levels of government from local to state to federal. Here are a few things the state could have done if they recognized the fire danger earlier like let’s say circa 2010.

1. Use the PUC to work with PGE to make power lines safer. Work with PGE and the public to minimize impacts of power outages.

2. Fight for more federal funding for wildfires. Allocate more state funding to high priority local areas that need it.

3. Work with federal government to make Federal lands more safe in terms of fire danger.

4. Update fire safety building codes.

5. Create state programs that incentivize renovations that improve fire safety.

6. Create a state wide campaign to make Californians aware of the increased fire danger to motivate people to upgrade their homes.

why can't they just drop a bunch of these on fires? Instead of water or the fire supression stuff?

That would look kinda cool.

https://www.amazon.com/Extinguisher-...96480815&psc=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

why can't they just drop a bunch of these on fires? Instead of water or the fire supression stuff?

That would look kinda cool.

https://www.amazon.com/Extinguisher-...96480815&psc=1

---

I'm sure the wildlife would prefer that to water... and it'd be great in the streams, creek beds, and lakes..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

I'm sure the wildlife would prefer that to water... and it'd be great in the streams, creek beds, and lakes..

---

yeah no clue whats in it, but what in that red stuff the drop all the time? I'd imagine not losing half a state to fire might trump the environmental impact after the fact?

Was kinda tongue in cheek as i'd imagine it would be much more expensive than water from a lake.

EDIT: link to product says non toxic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

yeah no clue whats in it, but what in that red stuff the drop all the time? I'd imagine not losing half a state to fire might trump the environmental impact after the fact?

Was kinda tongue in cheek as i'd imagine it would be much more expensive than water from a lake.

EDIT: link to product says non toxic.

---

Losing half the state to fire, or a shit ton of it seems inevitable at this point. Ya, they can bury the lines, but wherever there are cars, ATVs, people camping, lightning, etc... there will be fires when it's dry and windy... which is more and more and more..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

yeah no clue whats in it, but what in that red stuff the drop all the time?

---

Water, fertilizer and minor ingredients such as colorants, anti-corrosive material, thickeners (clay or natural gum), stabilizers and bactericides,

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2048

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hercule33

In my opinion, strategic planning falls at all levels of government from local to state to federal. Here are a few things the state could have done if they recognized the fire danger earlier like let’s say circa 2010.

1. Use the PUC to work with PGE to make power lines safer. Work with PGE and the public to minimize impacts of power outages.

2. Fight for more federal funding for wildfires. Allocate more state funding to high priority local areas that need it.

3. Work with federal government to make Federal lands more safe in terms of fire danger.

4. Update fire safety building codes.

5. Create state programs that incentivize renovations that improve fire safety.

6. Create a state wide campaign to make Californians aware of the increased fire danger to motivate people to upgrade their homes.

---

You're seriously suggesting that CA needs to "work with federal government"? You really have been asleep.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

yeah no clue whats in it, but what in that red stuff the drop all the time? I'd imagine not losing half a state to fire might trump the environmental impact after the fact?

Was kinda tongue in cheek as i'd imagine it would be much more expensive than water from a lake.

EDIT: link to product says non toxic.

---

The red shit is fertilizer. Turns into concrete when dry. Pilots love to drop that shit on people and cars.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

You're seriously suggesting that CA needs to "work with federal government"? You really have been asleep.
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.

---

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 I Skied Bandini Mountain

The red shit is fertilizer. Turns into concrete when dry. Pilots love to drop that shit on people and cars.

---

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 iceman

Maybe it would be better if they didn't fertilize the shit that'll grow up after the fire and then inevitably burn again.

---

When they kill the vegetation, they get massive landslides/mudslides instead of fires..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hercule33

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 :)

---

i believe that the argument is that the PUC has not necessarily been asleep, but has been an enabler.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

When they kill the vegetation, they get massive landslides/mudslides instead of fires..

---

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 iceman

Maybe it would be better if they didn't fertilize the shit that'll grow up after the fire and then inevitably burn again.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

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.

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.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

https://media2.giphy.com/media/F9hQLAVhWnL56/giphy.gif

---

well played, Ma'am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

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.

---

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 iceman

Maybe it would be better if they didn't fertilize the shit that'll grow up after the fire and then inevitably burn again.

---

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 I Skied Bandini Mountain

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.

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.

---

The steep south facing slope of Donner Ridge above Donner Lake was never reseeded and is still largely bare 60 years after it burned.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

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.

---

That $360M is only for public entities, no other claims.

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