Clinton policies highlighted in this predicament as well... what a surprise, not that Cali pols need much help.
So glad to be out of there.


California burning
Mismanagement of the environment will finish the state
Katya Sedgwick
california fires
People watch the Walbridge fire from a vineyard in Healdsburg, California (Getty)

Katya Sedgwick

August 29, 2020

11:46 AM

Oakland

The air in Northern California was thick and yellow in November 2018. The hills were wrapped not in salty fog, but a thin layer of ashes, some of which were doubtlessly human remains. The Paradise Fire raged for over two weeks, burning through 150,000 acres and consuming 85 souls.

The air quality officially became ‘dangerous’. Not to sound like a whiny Californian, but under such conditions you become aware of taking a breath. Once it happens, life becomes oppressive. When the choice is between taking a deep breath to get some oxygen, or trying not to take too deep of a breath because it may further trigger out of control allergies — what’s with all these particles in the air? — the natural inclination is to leave. Your eyes start burning, too. That November we scrambled our Thanksgiving plans and drove to LA, effectively as environmental refugees.

Santa Ana Winds are nothing new in Southern California. Strong, hot and dry, gusts pass from the Great Basin towards the Pacific every fall, inflaming dry brush in the area and sending thousands fleeing their homes. But over the last few years Northern California, also dry by the end of the summer, has been set aflame. Those fires have become far more catastrophic.

In a remarkably honest Mother Jones article, Elizabeth Shogren explained that the wildfires that have been terrorizing Northern California in the late 2010s have been caused by more than a century of fire suppression, resulting in overgrowth which supplied fires with plenty of fuel to burn through. For thousands of years previously, Native Americans managed the land with controlled burns, creating secure habitats and preferable hunting conditions — what was necessary for continuation of their way of life.

Traditional practices stand in contrast to our own environmental policies. According to a Reason Foundation study, the Clinton-era anti-logging policies resulted in runaway growth of tree density. When in the 1990s the Spotted Owl was placed on the endangered species list, culling plummeted and wildfires became increasingly catastrophic throughout the West. I think the Spotted Owl is very cute, of course, but it would be nice if we could find a way to live in harmony with this flock. I doubt the birds like the forest fires either.

In the meantime, California politicians have resorted to their favorite demagogic tropes: blaming climate change and corporations. Addressing this year’s Democratic National Convention, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared: ‘Hots are getting hotter, drys are getting drier; climate change is real.’ He was talking of a record-breaking temperature recorded in Death Valley that very week that he seemingly believes caused the early start of the 2020 fire season elsewhere in the state. However, if Newsom thinks hot and dry weather is what triggered the wildfires, he is demonstrably wrong.

The weather data is always full of noise; there is also a record high and a record low somewhere. It just so happened that the heatwave the governor was referring to is the first one in an otherwise cool summer. Prior to the fires, the air had been uncharacteristically humid. In this case the immediate cause of the multiple Northern California fires was dry lightning. The air was thick and moist, but no rain followed. Unusual weather yes, but not in the way Newsom described

Of course, when all else fails, there is still capitalism to blame. Last year Newsom accused the Northern California utility provider PG&E of ‘greed’ which in his opinion caused the catastrophic fires and subsequent rolling blackouts. It’s a strange charge, considering that the profit the company is allowed to make is overseen by the State of California.

It’s certainly true that the corporation should probably pay more attention to maintaining its electrical grid than investing in ‘green energy’ or producing TV commercials praising itself for inclusivity. But it’s also true that California law made PG&E into a designated fall guy. The power company is held responsible for a fire if it’s deemed that its equipment has been involved in it, even if it did due diligence in preventing the burn. In 110-degree arid heat, the tiniest spark emitted from a power line can ignite an inferno.

If a utility company is found guilty — and I’m not saying that it never is — ordinary people assume that it intentionally put them in jeopardy. Newspapers dutifully carry the headlines of PG&E culpability and politicians get to deflect the blame.

Since the shelter-in-place regime took place in California, its cities, especially the coastal cities, have been going from bad to worse. In addition to junkie encampments, already swallowing sidewalks, we get boarded-up storefronts, limited mobility, BLM signage, masks on every human. Businesses have been closing down at a spellbinding rate, with the population fleeing eastward. But what will finish California will be mismanagement of the environment. There are no indoor public spaces here because of the quarantine and with the fires raging everywhere, we can’t hang out outside either. Besides, there is no reason to live here but to inhale the ocean air while sipping a glass of Cab. Right now the state is in the middle of a yearly ‘we can’t breathe’ episode.

link

I agree with much of the article but it misses some very key points. Paramount is the number of new housing developments that have sprung up. There was nothing but wilderness when many of these fires raged in the 1970's, 80's and 90'. This "wildland urban interface" makes firefighting exponentially more difficult. Houses and human life get priority as they should but then there isn't enough personnel and engines to fight the wildfire.The new homeowners feel they have a slice of heaven, which they do but it is a 100% chance that some of them feel chain saws don't exist in heaven and will block by any means necessary fuels reduction. Even ones that are strictly brush removal. Add skinny driveways that engines cannot fit through and homes will be lost even when they are top priority for protection. Add the displaced homeowners and rubbernecking tourist blocking the access roads, already homeless people that have to be found and evacuated, housing densities that look like the city and the fire has a very short hop skip and a jump to move to the next house.

The article touched on this, politicians are eager to blame somebody or something as a deflection technique. As long as they can blame climate change or big business they have an excuse for not funding fuels reduction or road improvements or keeping open a fire station. PG&E isn't the only entity that can be accused of poor maintenance. Forest Service and sister agency maintenance programs have been severely downgraded in the last 30 or more years. Forest level roads deteriorate and firefighting equipment cannot get to where they need to be. I recently moved back to SW Oregon after 15 years on the Eastside of the Cascades. Ditches are filled in, culverts blocked, pump chances are silted in or washed out because there isn't the workforce to do that needed work.

Last, the forest is dynamic and continues to grow after a fuels treatment. Too many people think that one time and then fire danger is gone forever. Trees grow, brush grows, and ground litter accumulates again. Sooner or later the fuels will need treated again, maybe 5 years, maybe 10 or more. You can bet the same people will have the same arguments and will fight tooth and nail against cutting one precious stem. And one new argument "Why didn't you do it right the first time?"

That's the end of my venting. Theses issues exist nationwide but California is by far the worst when it comes to premeditated stupidity

The article isn't wrong however, its overly brief and in many ways too simplistic.

Blancolirio explains it well and hits on all the salient points.

Yet another thing the MSM runs interference for is the insane tree-hugger policies in Kali which directly contribute to excessive fuel for these wild fires. Proper management, an unknown quantity in all fields within that socialist commie State, would go a huge way to mitigating this annual shitshow of death, destruction, and wasted resources. But no, they're, as the article mentions, preoccupied with climate change, anti-capitalism, and a host of other bullshit nonsense, none of which serves to address real problems on behalf of the electorate.

Only got as far as the mythological 'managed by natve americans'. I wonder what happened with the lightening strikes?

Also: "Blancolirio explains it well and hits on all the salient points." is somewhat true but some of his points are hit and miss. Perhaps the most glaring point is his 'no old growth forests'! Having been in some of those old growth forest (not many) he needs to do more research. As for Redding (I lived there), the explosion of housing etc. development in Manizanita and brush was just the result of political and personal decisions, not environmentalists. There was some decent information but it was biased and should be viewed with an open mind.
What is happening in California is coming to many places in the West! Emigration does not solve problems, it just changed the locale.

California is the largest USFS region in the country as far as personnel and acres burned; it has the largest response to fires in terms of numbers of personnel and equipment, and it has more activity than the rest of the country with respect to prescribed fire and forest management. When it comes to fire, California is like it's own country. I've spent a lot of years fighting fire there, and across the rest of the country.

People in California would love to see fires stopped dead, no more houses lost, no more burns, but it isn't happening. The topography, climate, and the fact that hundreds of thousands keep encroaching further into fire areas, with little or no defensible space, only means it will continue.

My wife sent me an article yesterday about fire policies in California, and it was largely bullshit. It was an article along the same lines as that the start of this thread.

Among other lies and inaccuracies are references to the air tanker program and the notion that retardant not droppped within 2,000' of housing, is somehow wasted. The author couldn't make the connection between fighting the fire AT the fire and stopping it BEFORE it got to the houses, and dropping within sight of the houses, apparently.

There's an absurd mentality that the BLM, BIA, USFS, etc al, should go into the forests and clean them up so they don't burn, as if one is sweeping a supermarket. It reminds me of many years ago, driving a brush truck on my way to a fire in town, when I was blocked in the truck by the Chief of Police. He prevented me from getting out of my truck, as I arrived at the scene. A fast moving grass fire was headed up the hillside toward someone's boat.

"This is all your fault," the chief said."

"Mine?"

"Yes, you didn't come out this spring and burn all the brush around town, so we wouldn't have fires."

"Oh, you mean the fire departments fault, not my fault."

"Yes."

"And you think I should come out here and clean the entire town of brush and material, even on private property? Have you thought about doing it?"

He eventually relented and got out of my way so I could go fight the fire, but his dipshit mentality isn't alone.

Traditionally, California fires, where impacting people, have been urban interface; the loss of the town of Paradise was an example of a town nearly completely in the forest, and there are many such towns in California. More recently, in the past few years, we've seen wind-driven fires that escaped the wildland environment to run through suburban areas, but we see the same thing again and again: people refuse to ensure defensible space around their property, clear of fuels, and the propety burns. Surprise, surprise.

I'm not a big fan of california. However, rather than take some responsibility, the sue-happy state is a place that wants to blame the state and federal government. My house burned, why didn't you protect me? Really? What did you do to prepare for the fire.

We see it year and year again; people let the local fuels grow right up under their redwood deck. The place burns. They build again. Let the fuels grow up around their place. It burns again. And someone else is to blame. Rather than the blame game, lift a finger and help thyself home owner.

It's absolutely true that the Sierra Club and the fight for the Mexican Spotted Owl did an enormous amount of damage to forest management: a number of logging operations went out of business over that, including areas where there are no spotted owls. For a century, the management of those areas had a lot to do with logging, and the forests were maintained as a resource for logging, among other things. Both fuel density and forest decay and attendant bug kill have led to worsening conditions, hastened by drought and rising temperatures. Does hotter and dryer make a difference? A huge difference, though the author of the article doesn't seem to understand that.

Fuel moistures in the 100 and 1000 hour fuels are very low. Heat is up. Wind is up. Relative humidities are lower, and the result is greater fire behavior, often trending toward extreme. Two foot flame lengths go to six, seventy five foot flames to two hundred or more, and the spread rate, spotting, and damage increases by orders of magnitude. The fires create their own weather and become self-perpetuating.

In the meantime, it's a nice, but very naive idea that the government should go clean up the forests or prevent fires with prescribed burns, and shows considerable lack of understanding. The problem is bad. The first line, the place that needs to start, is people taking responsibility for themselves and doing what they've been told to do...for decades. Defensible space isn't a cute idea. It's a necessity. Build in the forest; eventually it's going to burn down. It will. One can reduce the odds by being proactive and taking care of one's own property; its a start. It's also something that very few do.

I've had a lot of years diving into these fires, losing friends and associates doing the same, and very. nearly buying it myself. I wouldn't trade any of those years or that time, but it is frustrating to see the same things year after year, and nobody seems to listen. Not even after their place burns down.

Ah well...

My apologies to the "good" people still living in Cal. But the whole state is going into the crapper and frankly deserves it. Keep on voting liberal.

Thank you for the amazing work you've done, sn3. My in-laws extended family lived in Cali from the 1950s, built at the edges what was then the limits of civilization and ... never had a problem. They incorporated intelligent design characteristics for their houses, and maintained the cleared, defensible perimeters of which you speak.

One great uncle, who was a real card, walked all of mid and southern California scouting the placement of the electric grid's infrastructure. He drew up his own designs and specifications for his home. He then took bids on the job. When the builder who won (and signed) the contract started construction using the usual materials the great uncle stopped him, showed him the contract that he had signed, made him tear down and start again.

That was decades ago, in Tustin. His place was easy to find because that was where the roads ended. Now there's a whole community and even a community college that have been built further out. I almost missed his house the last time I went there because everything around it was so built up.

There's an interesting article and photo on how Jamboree got its name, with a great picture of everyone saluting the colors in this article link. One can see the native state of the surrounding area in the photo.

quote:

Originally posted by trebor44:
Only got as far as the mythological 'managed by natve americans'.

I continued reading after that, but “mythological” is certainly my belief.

First, how can we possibly know how aboriginal peoples “managed” anything? There were no literate pre-Columbian societies north of present day Mexico that produced written records at all, much less detailing their environmental management practices.

Then there is the question of not only how do we know what they did, but how could aboriginal peoples have managed and “controlled” large burns even if they had wanted to? Aboriginal Americans had nothing more than stone age tools and resources, and not even draft animals capable of transporting large and heavy loads.

It would be interesting to know if the author actually believes that fantasy, or if he felt it was necessary to use the claim to convince his tree-hugging audience that yes, it’s okay to manage our environment responsibly to keep from destroying it.

You can also thank the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for preventing controlled burns. The irony is the controlled burning removes fuel load, helps fire-dependent species thrive, and generally results in less impact to air quality than out of control wild land fires.

Defensible space is a major issue for home owners in these urban interface zones. My parents live at the 4000' level in a Sierra town no different than Paradise; majority of residents are retirees who escaped the high costs of the Bay Area or, the heat of Sacramento. Every 3rd or, 4th home is a vacation home, where the owner comes up once a month eventually living full-time after they retire. While my parents are absolutely crazy about defensible space and policing up pine needles (to the point of raking up topsoil ) and the highly flammable Mountain Misery bushes, these neighbors and some of the other open spaces are highly susceptible to intense wildfires.

If the economy goes completely to shit, I'm thinking of buying a 20-30 goats and offering vegetation clearing services.

The wildland fire industry has known for decades that aggressive fire suppression is a huge component contributing to larger and larger catastrophic fires. The longer you engage in it, the heavier the fuel load becomes. Native Americans no doubt had nothing like that in mind when they burned small areas to improve grazing habitat; that was done solely to entice their food to reliably come to them.

Granted, controlled burns are more diffucult in heavy timber in really remote areas, but it is doable. And with Calfire, California has a veritable army when it comes to wildland fire. Fire is an industry in Cali like no other place I've seen.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I continued reading after that, but “mythological” is certainly my belief.

First, how can we possibly know how aboriginal peoples “managed” anything?

Actually, it's no fantasy (except, perhaps, the "controlled" part). It's based on observed behavior (Indians didn't magically disappear the moment the white guys showed up), testimony from Indians and decades of documented observations of how the environment changed with different land-use practices. I don't know that it was as neat and simple as it has been presented, but it's not coming out of nowhere.

And no, I'm not some closet bunny molester. I've got a degree in land use planning, I work with land, and reading up on historical land use and management techniques has been something I do in my spare time for many years now.

The easiest sources to point you to are "1491" by Charles C. Mann and "Uncommon Ground", edited by William Cronon. The truth is, though, that you'll find bits and pieces of the same picture in everything from online histories of Hernando de Soto in Georgia to the "western narratives" (as they're marketed - in essence they're historiographical travelogues) of Washington Irving.

"Controlled burns" are an oxymoron. The term is "prescribed fire." Whether it remains controlled or not is...not under the control of man.

Burn conditions are prescribed precisely: fuel moisture, temperature range, wind, relative humidity, aspect, parcel, fuels, etc, but what the fire does once ignited is not an exact science. I showed up on a fire outside Lake Piru in California years ago, that was prescribed fire, and a very small one at that; a tenth of an acre; it was several thousand in the afternoon, and shortly thereafter, twenty five thousand.

Californians are springloaded to sue if there's an R in the month, or a cloud in the sky, or another car on the road. I was on a SWA flight years ago out of Burbank, that dinged a wingtip in Phoenix. First thing the guy behind did was grab his neck and begin shrieking that he was injured, and somebody call a lawyer. Baby's first words in the land of nuts and flakes? "I gonna sue you."

In that litigious environment, I certainly don't want to be the first one to light the fire that burns down someone's neighborhood.

As for stopping fires...yes, the policy is to stop fire. Fires that burn tend to keep burning. God help the incident commander, bureau chief, Captain, division commander, or air attack that lets the fire burn when he had a chance to do something, anything, to make it stop (even if for appearances). I've had people threaten to sue me when I saved their herd of cattle or home. You're repainting my car, my fence, my house, my cow; you got retardant on me. How dare you?

I understand the notion that fire managed itself through the ages, so why shouldn't we? It's a misguided, ignorant notion, lacking in education or thought, but it's easy, and many glob onto it. Never mind the Peshtigo fire of 1871, 1.2 million acres, 2,500 dead, or the Great Michigan fire the same year, 2,5 million acres, or the Hinkly of 1894, a mere 160,000 acres (but a dozen towns burned down), or the Great Fire of 1910 (largest in US history at 3 million acres; burned up several states). Sounds great...the natives lit fires, but letting fires go was never a good idea. Especially not when hundreds of thousands or millions of people are living in the path, and hundreds of millions or billions in property are at stake. Especially. not when each of those millions will sue if one doesn't do one's damndest to fight the fire.

The Yellowstone fires never did come under control. I remember them, 1987. They burned until winter rolled in. Carr fire, 2018; 1,600 structures. Camp fire, 2018. Eighteen thousand structures. Nearly ninety dead. Only one hundred fifty thousand acres, but the most damage done by a fire in that state to date. Letting fire go is not a good idea. Prescribed fire is a gamble. Whose turn is it to roll the dice?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
You can also thank the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for preventing controlled burns. The irony is the controlled burning removes fuel load, helps fire-dependent species thrive, and generally results in less impact to air quality than out of control wild land fires.

Just about anything that starts with the word 'California' in its title is likely doomed to be a failure because its being led by idiots

sns3guppy,

To clarify, it seems you are saying people need to be responsible for taking care of their own property as to the potential for wildfires and related damage. I agree with such. And that applies to personal property, also city-count-state-fed owned property. The owners have primary responsibility.

If you build properly, locate properly, manage the forest lands properly, there would be notably less fire damage to people and their belongings. (We just had friends barely escape fires in the Big Basin/Boulder Creek area of CA, driving through smoke heavy enough so they couldn't see the road).

There is a wrinkle in many parts of CA. Not uncommon that owners of private property are not allowed to properly manage wooded areas of their land. Where I live, I am not allowed to cut down a tree on my personal property, if 36" above dirt level the tree circumference is 36" or more, UNLESS I get city permission. The roots of one tree totally cracked up my driveway. And a licensed arborist documented that the top of the tree was splitting, would soon break and would damage the house. The city would not allow me to cut it down. Fortunately we also documented ground termites in the roots of the tree. They city relented.

Sidenote. Years ago I worked for a firm that developed software for realtime wildfire mapping, using thermal infrared with other spectral bands, combined with topographic/geographic data, to assist incident commanders better know the what/where of the fire. (I was on the finance end not the technical end). The software was used to map the Yellowstone fires, also Yosemite fires, Oakland hills fire. (Also used for oil spills and earthquake damage). We delivered the full package to the feds, they sat on it, put it in the back of the bottom drawer of the file cabinet.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
You can also thank the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for preventing controlled burns. The irony is the controlled burning removes fuel load, helps fire-dependent species thrive, and generally results in less impact to air quality than out of control wild land fires.

Just about anything that starts with the word 'California' in its title is likely doomed to be a failure because its being led by idiots

Idiots who (as per CA Gov Newsom) see themselves as the light to lead the nation and the world into the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
There is a wrinkle in many parts of CA. Not uncommon that owners of private property are not allowed to properly manage wooded areas of their land. Where I live, I am not allowed to cut down a tree on my personal property, if 36" above dirt level the tree circumference is 36" or more, UNLESS I get city permission. The roots of one tree totally cracked up my driveway. And a licensed arborist documented that the top of the tree was splitting, would soon break and would damage the house. The city would not allow me to cut it down. Fortunately we also documented ground termites in the roots of the tree. They city relented.

The amount of regulations and permitting imposed by various counties on property owners should not be under estimated as being contributors to the issues we have. There's a lot of dumb people out there who've spurned on clueless legislators to create ridiculous bills and guidelines which deal with one problem but, really are more burdensome in the long run.

I was in the Napa-St.Helena-Calistoga (the over priced Wine Country) last week to bury my mother. It was hot and smokey then. Yesterday I think it was 113f there. Rolling power outages are scheduled today I'm sure.

Now that all of my California relatives have passed, I have no 'family' reason to ever return to California. Happy not to pay taxes or live there.

I do enjoy the drive north of Red Bluff where you're likely to see "Farmers for Trump' signs along I-5.

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:
I was in the Napa-St.Helena-Calistoga (the over priced Wine Country) last week to bury my mother. It was hot and smokey then. Yesterday I think it was 113f there. Rolling power outages are scheduled today I'm sure.

Yup, just got the texts that it'll happen. Looks like it'll be Calistoga and the Eastern slope of the valley, Pope Valley, Angwin, what's left of Berryessa, etc. Thanks PUC for insisting on investing in 'renewables' instead of modernizing the existing grid. Now there's no capacity for hot weather and the existing infrastructure is dated.