Jump to content

CR Los Angeles fires thread


Hagbard Celine

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Don't forget the dumb shit like showing a guy holding a small fish with a caption of "this is what CA let their houses burn for."  The dumb is just unfathomable. 

Yep.  A water supply HUNDREDS of miles away, when there was ample water in LA's overall reservoir system.  The reason that LA couldn't dump a combined 4 billion GPM on the fires was not because LA had no water.  It was because pipes, systems, and physics....which dictate that no place on earth could put 4 billion GPM on fires at once.  

It's like complaining that you can't fill Lake Michigan with your garden hose in 10 minutes.  No shit, sherlock.  Your hose might be plugged into the entire Atlantic Ocean, but the diameter of that hose is gonna dictate how fast you can get the ocean to Lake Michigan.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mchookem said:

i mean hasn't water in California been an issue for like a hundred years?

image.gif.02b2ab9a3e2ff9a6e03cb27fc11a2eb2.gif

But here's the thing...in terms of having adequate overall supply for immediate fire suppression, that's NEVER been an issue.  Even a primary water storage reservoir that's only at 10% capacity is gonna have more fire than a fire department could distribute in a month.

It's kinda like how it doesn't matter how many apples are on the trees in Yakima, under contract to be delivered to my HEB.  If I want an apple right now, the ONLY thing that matters is the supply of apples on the shelf at my HEB.  If my HEB has 100 apples, and I suddenly have a need for 5,000 apples, it doesn't matter whether or not HEB has a contract for another 100,000 apples to be sent by truck in the coming days.  Today, I can only immediately obtain what is there on the shelf.  And no HEB maintains 100,000 apples on the shelf.  It would be insane, they don't have the space.  They don't have the space for 5,000 apples.  Grocery stores keep maybe 1,000 apples on hand for daily purchase.  That's how the supply works.

California has water woes (every Western state, including ours, does).  But those woes have nothing to do with the ability to fight a fire in emergency conditions.

The people who are saying that it does are either idiots, liars, or both.  And in this America, the answer is almost always "both."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly are catastrophe bonds and how have holders of them NOT lost their shorts, while everyone else is?

Quote

 

One group that appears to have been spared so far: holders of catastrophe bonds, which have largely held their value even as local insurance losses mount. With climate disasters on the rise, insurers have increasingly sold these instruments to investors to manage risk.

Insurers, homeowners and businesses aren’t so lucky. Even before this winter’s wildfire season arrived, officials in the region had warned that the California FAIR plan, a state-run insurer of last resort that has increasingly become a main source of coverage for residents, was “one bad fire season away from complete insolvency.”

The FAIR plan’s exposure soared by 61 percent year-on-year to $458 billion by the end of September, according to RBC’s Heleniak. Driving that is the flight of insurers from the California market: Between 2020 through 2022 — during which more than 23,000 wildfires raged across the state, according to data from state officials — private insurers dropped coverage for 2.8 million home insurance customers, Heleniak wrote.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-09/catastrophe-bond-funds-say-they-ll-dodge-losses-as-la-fires-rage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, wood said:

Yeah like I said above, a water infrastructure capable of handling such a disaster would be a gargantuan undertaking, if it could be done at all. And if it could be engineered and constructed, there is zero chance imho that anyone would pay for it.

it absolutely can be done

and the cost is not prohibitive

the delta law was passed in 1958 and between then and completion of the delta works in 1997 the total cost was 13 billion guilders, about US$6.5 billion, in 1997 money value

they thought they would be good to the year 2100 but global warming is accelerating their timetable for the next rebuild

over here in trumpia, we've got a number of natural disasters we could defend against, if we wanted to, and some we can't

places the dutch would say "this is not possible": all of florida, louisiana, delmarva

the dutch absolutely would agree to drain galveston bay and build 10 miles of deltawork defenses, and then the concrete piping to drain a direct cat5 hit up the ship channel that drowns the entire metro; very easy, very doable, just a matter of political will and the $

solving for southland wildfires can also be done

dams desalination goats gravity land pipes prisoners & screws (solar-driven archimedes)

sacrifice every undeveloped inch of land in the simi hills and the san bernadino, san gabriel & santa monica mountains

no wilderness next to and above LA

no flora

no fauna

no games

no fun

we're not solving for interstellar space travel

it would cost less than the property losses of the current catastrophe

and the space laser bitch would love it

WeAtHeR KoNtRoL!!!!

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have long dreamed of a fleet of giant drones 3 miles in diameter which can deploy under a mesocyclone and prevent a tornado from reaching the ground

it's entirely plausible with current technology

+++

we spent somewhere between 4 and 6 trillion on ww2 which at the time was somewhere on order of 35-40% of gnp every year

if we wanted to build infinity-billion-gallon water tanks in the rocky mountains to be able to douse a vei8 yellowstone event and turn the western us in to a mudpit, we could do it

today

it's just the cost

+++

in 2023, the top 1% of American households had a total net worth of $43 trillion, which is 30% of the country's total net worth

if they all gave up 10% of their net worth, we could solve for everything except earthquakes and the areas below sea level above mentioned

we could also eliminate poverty, homelessness, cancer, debt, put 10000 people on mars, and build a daedulus ship for a 100-year round trip to barnard's star

image.jpeg.912bd42a3aff22559e6f95e02f240dfb.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I had to drive my MIL to Rivercrest, CA (China Lake NWS) from Vegas through the Mojave.  It was mile after mile after mile of lunar landscape and temps over 110 in June.

LA is a little better off due to proximity to the ocean, but that's what  it was built on.  It didn't need much help from climate change to burst into flames.

*Ridgecrest

(I acknowledge that I picked a nit there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well fellers, if I don't just up and die, I oughta be healthier the next time we meet.

Went to my favorite greasy-spoon diner today and it was a cackle-fest as they watched Fox News talking about fires. The owner is of Middle Eastern extraction, and I briefly considered replacing "California" with wherever his folks are from, having my own little jest, but do not currently have a steak knife embedded in my forehead so I guess I didn't.

Just a pack of provincial baboons.

I shan't be back.

Edited by RDCanecutter
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

What I still don't get are the cries about "DEI DID THIS!" - promulgated by multiple posters on this board.

I get that you don't like DEI.  I get that you think it leads to hiring people who aren't the best for certain aspects of the job.

But in THIS situation....nobody can point to a single element of the response that was actually negatively affected by a hiring policy.  80 mph winds, fire that consumed hundreds of houses within minutes of starting, and the winds continued so it couldn't be fought from the air for over a day (the only way to truly get a handle on a massive fire like this).  The LAFD coulda been made up of Billy the Buff White Fireman Straight Outta the 1950s, it coulda been made upn entirely of lesbians with multiple questionable piercings....both groups would have done exactly what WAS done: fight a rear-guard action, help people evacuate, etc.

And they hydrant/pressure issue: dude, Americans are dumb as fuck.  It's elementary engineering and hydraulics (how much water and pressure can you get through a certain diameter pipe, how quickly is the reserve of water drawn down, etc.).  It's all basic math.  And the situation is pretty much the same wherever you go: drop a fire fed by 80 mph winds, tearing through dry conditions, into ANY urban area in America, and the firefighting response and capabilities would be the same: limited tank and hydrant capacity.  We don't build water delivery systems to handle fighting a thousand house fires at once.  We just don't.  And practically speaking, we can't.

There may indeed be some room for criticism as to vegetation management for fire prevention purposes, but again....in these circumstances.....I doubt it would have helped much.

What's fascinating is not just that this became hyper-politicized, but that it's focused on two issues that don't exist/had no influence at all: "DEI" and "they shoulda had massive amounts more water storage and hydrants."  We are a dumb, dumb, DUMB country.

Quote

Yep.  A water supply HUNDREDS of miles away, when there was ample water in LA's overall reservoir system.  The reason that LA couldn't dump a combined 4 billion GPM on the fires was not because LA had no water.  It was because pipes, systems, and physics....which dictate that no place on earth could put 4 billion GPM on fires at once.  

It's like complaining that you can't fill Lake Michigan with your garden hose in 10 minutes.  No shit, sherlock.  Your hose might be plugged into the entire Atlantic Ocean, but the diameter of that hose is gonna dictate how fast you can get the ocean to Lake Michigan.

alonzo-mourning.gif

Exactly. I won't re-post all my posts in the same vein from the other thread, but yeah, all of this.

Edited by wood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wood said:

Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks ‘they’ should put out the California wildfires by making it rain – 15 responses that might dampen her mood  https://www.thepoke.com/2025/01/13/marjorie-taylor-greene-dems-should-put-out-wildfires-by-making-it-rain/

Holy sh*t. One paragraph in and I'm already LOLing.

#7 is my favorite ...

 

Jewish space lasers, the McDonalds ice cream machine of international conflict.

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

But here's the thing...in terms of having adequate overall supply for immediate fire suppression, that's NEVER been an issue.  Even a primary water storage reservoir that's only at 10% capacity is gonna have more fire than a fire department could distribute in a month.

It's kinda like how it doesn't matter how many apples are on the trees in Yakima, under contract to be delivered to my HEB.  If I want an apple right now, the ONLY thing that matters is the supply of apples on the shelf at my HEB.  If my HEB has 100 apples, and I suddenly have a need for 5,000 apples, it doesn't matter whether or not HEB has a contract for another 100,000 apples to be sent by truck in the coming days.  Today, I can only immediately obtain what is there on the shelf.  And no HEB maintains 100,000 apples on the shelf.  It would be insane, they don't have the space.  They don't have the space for 5,000 apples.  Grocery stores keep maybe 1,000 apples on hand for daily purchase.  That's how the supply works.

California has water woes (every Western state, including ours, does).  But those woes have nothing to do with the ability to fight a fire in emergency conditions.

The people who are saying that it does are either idiots, liars, or both.  And in this America, the answer is almost always "both."

This country can't keep enough apples on hand to put out wildfires and not enough Finnish Forest Rakes™ to prevent them! We did when we were great!

I say we build a wall around the fire and have the Finns pay for it!

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not be CR, but on the matter of policy and governance:

On Ukraine threads, over the last couple of years, I have opined that supply policy should not be set by asking the question “How many artillery shells can the west produce readily?”, but rather, by the question “How many artillery shells does Ukraine need to win”. The former question wins political debates; the latter moves policy towards something useful. 
 
Similarly, on wildfire prevention and protection, the wrong policy setting question is “what emphases should be placed on competing interests, including wildfire prevention and protection?”, but rather, “What measures can be taken to reduce the risk of a wildfire approaching, and mitigate the damage it causes?”

I have heard that it takes as long as three years in California for a controlled burn to happen, due to tiers of government approval with challenges from various groups and organizations. I’m not saying other groups shouldn’t have a say; however the process should be streamlined. 
 
Ron DeSantis is not the first Florida governor to perform well in a hurricane. Many predecessors, from either party, have done well. In Florida, a new governor knows, before being sworn in, that he will have to deal with at least one hurricane, and he will be judged by how he performs. 
 
California wildfires are on a different tempo. They may be several years apart. They will come, however (and water supply has been an issue for a century). Policy needs to be based on that understanding- they will come. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not be CR, but on the matter of policy and governance:
On Ukraine threads, over the last couple of years, I have opined that supply policy should not be set by asking the question “How many artillery shells can the west produce readily?”, but rather, by the question “How many artillery shells does Ukraine need to win”. The former question wins political debates; the latter moves policy towards something useful. 
 
Similarly, on wildfire prevention and protection, the wrong policy setting question is “what emphases should be placed on competing interests, including wildfire prevention and protection?”, but rather, “What measures can be taken to reduce the risk of a wildfire approaching, and mitigate the damage it causes?”
I have heard that it takes as long as three years in California for a controlled burn to happen, due to tiers of government approval with challenges from various groups and organizations. I’m not saying other groups shouldn’t have a say; however the process should be streamlined. 
 
Ron DeSantis is not the first Florida governor to perform well in a hurricane. Many predecessors, from either party, have done well. In Florida, a new governor knows, before being sworn in, that he will have to deal with at least one hurricane, and he will be judged by how he performs. 
 
California wildfires are on a different tempo. They may be several years apart. They will come, however (and water supply has been an issue for a century). Policy needs to be based on that understanding- they will come. 

But all policies have to be tempered with realism.
The entire upper Texas coast has asked “how can we prevent flooding like Harvey from happening again?”
The problem is that you pretty much cannot. It’s flat coastal prairie. Drop 40-50 inches of rain on it in a short period, and you’re gonna flood, badly. Maybe some areas here and there can be improved, risks can be reduced, we can lower flood risk from lesser rain events.
But there’s no practicable measures that will keep it from flooding, a lot, if Harvey 2.0 hits.
Flood control reservoirs work well in steep country (see Lake Travis). They don’t work well in the prairie, because they just can’t have that much capacity. That’s just one example.
There are things that can be done to reduce wildfire risk and impact, and those should be prioritized.
But they cost money, and the same people demanding them today will be shouting “taxation is theft” tomorrow.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


But all policies have to be tempered with realism.
The entire upper Texas coast has asked “how can we prevent flooding like Harvey from happening again?”
The problem is that you pretty much cannot. It’s flat coastal prairie. Drop 40-50 inches of rain on it in a short period, and you’re gonna flood, badly. Maybe some areas here and there can be improved, risks can be reduced, we can lower flood risk from lesser rain events.
But there’s no practicable measures that will keep it from flooding, a lot, if Harvey 2.0 hits.
Flood control reservoirs work well in steep country (see Lake Travis). They don’t work well in the prairie, because they just can’t have that much capacity. That’s just one example.
There are things that can be done to reduce wildfire risk and impact, and those should be prioritized.
But they cost money, and the same people demanding them today will be shouting “taxation is theft” tomorrow.

California bragged just a few short years ago about its budget surplus. California has an eleven figure (no lie) “rainy day fund”. Given that the damage from the wildfire will be at least five times as large as that fund, and given the environmental disaster (let alone humanitarian) this wildfire is, it’s fair to question priorities. 
 
Example- one argument against a controlled burn is the carbon released in the atmosphere from such a measure. Said carbon released is dwarfed by the carbon released by the wildfire. 
 
It’s time for the policymakers to re ask the questions and re run the math with the new known factors and variables. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, statsman said:

California bragged just a few short years ago about its budget surplus. California has an eleven figure (no lie) “rainy day fund”. Given that the damage from the wildfire will be at least five times as large as that fund, and given the environmental disaster (let alone humanitarian) this wildfire is, it’s fair to question priorities. 
 
Example- one argument against a controlled burn is the carbon released in the atmosphere from such a measure. Said carbon released is dwarfed by the carbon released by the wildfire. 
 
It’s time for the policymakers to re ask the questions and re run the math with the new known factors and variables. 

I think you’ve created a false dichotomy to describe the situation in California. To extent it exists, it has less to do with, as you imply, liberal over-regulation than with the defiance of property owners who refuse to come to terms with the reality of nature. We already talk about “managed retreat” along the coast, but we are more hesitant to have that discussion for high risk fire zones. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Was talking to a Trumpkin:

"It's CA's fault for not being prepared."

"Do you feel that way about Asheville?"

"Huh?"

"It's the second time they've been hit by a major hurricane in 100 years."

"Um.."

"Yeah, it sounds stupid when you say it out loud, doesn't it?"

I love the chance to dunk on MAGA's but not really understanding your police work here, Lou.

California (a state) has wildfires every year.

Asheville (a city) has two major hurricanes in 100 years.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California bragged just a few short years ago about its budget surplus. California has an eleven figure (no lie) “rainy day fund”. Given that the damage from the wildfire will be at least five times as large as that fund, and given the environmental disaster (let alone humanitarian) this wildfire is, it’s fair to question priorities. 
 
Example- one argument against a controlled burn is the carbon released in the atmosphere from such a measure. Said carbon released is dwarfed by the carbon released by the wildfire. 
 
It’s time for the policymakers to re ask the questions and re run the math with the new known factors and variables. 

Was that argument the basis for California refusing to perform controlled burns in these specific areas?
And I don’t mean “somebody said it at a meeting,” I mean the actual basis for a decision by authorities not to perform controlled burns in these specific areas.
Not that I’m deflecting from possible/likely poor wildfire planning and management decisions otherwise; the US has a spotty history of fire management. It wouldn’t surprise me, but the fact that you immediately went to a single point of argument that is a “libtard talking point” doesn’t cloak you with much credibility. Many of our shitty Fire management decisions have been due to a zero-compromise point on protecting all property. Others are due to public pressure based on things like cost and aesthetics.
The public demands some very short-sighted things. Austin residents screamed “don’t trim our pretty trees” right up until they screamed at Austin Energy “why didn’t you trim the trees?”
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://wilg.github.io/la-fire-maps/images/1050010040277300.html

take a look at this image. See how the entire mountain range that abuts the town is a lighter brown? That's because it all burned. I'm not the "controlled burn" expert like many of you here, but can someone explain how controlled burns in the San Gabriels would have prevented the fire driven by 100 mph winds from reaching the homes? 

 

Edited by Foosters
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Was that argument the basis for California refusing to perform controlled burns in these specific areas?
And I don’t mean “somebody said it at a meeting,” I mean the actual basis for a decision by authorities not to perform controlled burns in these specific areas.
Not that I’m deflecting from possible/likely poor wildfire planning and management decisions otherwise; the US has a spotty history of fire management. It wouldn’t surprise me, but the fact that you immediately went to a single point of argument that is a “libtard talking point” doesn’t cloak you with much credibility. Many of our shitty Fire management decisions have been due to a zero-compromise point on protecting all property. Others are due to public pressure based on things like cost and aesthetics.
The public demands some very short-sighted things. Austin residents screamed “don’t trim our pretty trees” right up until they screamed at Austin Energy “why didn’t you trim the trees?”

I heard on a (conservative) NR podcast a discussion about the length of time required for a controlled burn. 
 
Googling confirms the process of permitting and approval in California takes weeks to months, and that advocacy groups and neighbors get to challenge and one of the bases of challenges is impact to air quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

and that advocacy groups and neighbors get to challenge and one of the bases of challenges is impact to air quality. 

"Air quality" does not equal "carbon released in the atmosphere."  Air quality is unquestionably a legitimate concern, one that SHOULD be taken into account - smoke is hazardous as shit, beyond a mere annoyance.  If conditions are going to be such that in a controlled burn, the smoke will just settle into the nearby valley, making habitation impossible for a significant period of time, that's something to be taken into account.  That's why burns are ideally conducted on not entirely windless days (you want enough wind to move the smoke, and to move the fire slowly, but not enough wind to create a risk of rapid spread of the fire).

Your zeal to blame liberal ideals that you hate blinds you to the fact that there are some legit things that SHOULD be considered in planning a controlled burn, and other things that shouldn't be an impediment to a controlled burn (among other fire management techniques).  Those factors are not exclusive to liberals or conservatives (again, your blindness to the fact that we allow massive profit-taking by construction of structures in fire-prone areas, without requiring offsetting expenditures on things that will reduce fire risk/help with firefighting - really, a problem with construction in disaster-prone areas across the board - is quite telling).

Your only interest in "the common good" is to the extent that it gives you the chance to gig some libtards.  You simply cannot grasp that if we're actually going to work towards the common good, a shitload of oxes are gonna get gored, and you're going to be pissed off by many of them ("TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!")

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, statsman said:

I heard on a (conservative) NR podcast a discussion about the length of time required for a controlled burn. 
 
Googling confirms the process of permitting and approval in California takes weeks to months, and that advocacy groups and neighbors get to challenge and one of the bases of challenges is impact to air quality. 

I am by no means a controlled burn expert, but why does it surprise you there is a lot of paperwork involved with intentionally lighting shit on fire, why does it surprise you that AQI is a consideration for the timing of a burn? You seem to be strongly intimating that this is a librul California issue but that is not the case. And in any event nothing could have prevented what has happened in LA, which is resulted from a freakish combination of weather.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Upgrayedd said:

You would be surprised how often controlled burns get sideways.  Is someone actually advocating for that in urban SoCal?  Lulz.

YEAH!  CUT THROUGH ALL THAT LIBTARD RED TAPE AND REGULATIONS!  ONLY PUSSY COMMUNISTS CONSIDER "WIND CONDITIONS" AND "WHETHER 100 PEOPLE WILL BE HOSPITALIZED FOR SMOKE INHALATION!"  IT'S THE GODDAMNED PUSSIFICATION OF 'MERICA!!!!!!

Jesus fucking Christ.  Controlled burns are a good and important tool...that must be wielded wisely and deliberately.

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

I am by no means a controlled burn expert, but why does it surprise you there is a lot of paperwork involved with intentionally lighting shit on fire, why does it surprise you that AQI is a consideration for the timing of a burn? You seem to be strongly intimating that this is a librul California issue but that is not the case. And in any event nothing could have prevented what has happened in LA, which is resulted from a freakish combination of weather.  

Have you not realized that the LA wildfire is a huge disaster? That fire prevention and mitigation is as big of a failure as the levees in New Orleans during Katrina?

 
oh, hell. Strike that. Y’all convinced me. This disaster was unforeseeable, unmanageable and unpreventable. All government offices involved did a great job. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

You would be surprised how often controlled burns get sideways.  Is someone actually advocating for that in urban SoCal?  Lulz.

The non-trivial chance a controlled burn becomes an uncontrolled burn is the biggest issue with them. 

 

 

Weeks to months of permitting for something with that sort of destructive power runs from the seemingly inadequate to perfectly cromulent scale.

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, statsman said:

Have you not realized that the LA wildfire is a huge disaster? That fire prevention and mitigation is as big of a failure as the levees in New Orleans during Katrina?

 
oh, hell. Strike that. Y’all convinced me. This disaster was unforeseeable, unmanageable and unpreventable. All government offices involved did a great job. 

you're the one telling us that controlled burns would have saved the day. burden's on you to show some proof to back that up.  I've yet to see any actual expert opine that it would have made a difference with these fires, short of just control burning the entire swath of San Gabriel mountains that runs from Santa Clarita to Big Bear.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LANDS ACT THAT WILL BETTER PROTECT THE SAN GABRIEL  MOUNTAINS, ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES | Sierra Club

I guess you could just control burn the entire bottom border (green and black line). Given the serpentine nature of the mountain range, I'd says you're looking at a track over 100 miles. And that's just the San Gabriels. What about the San Jacinto mountain range that also runs along cities and towns? The Santa Ana range? We're talking hundreds of miles of foothill communities at the base of these mountains. 

Hundreds of miles of this:

San Gabriel Mountains Hiking Guide | Outdoor SoCal

Is that pretty similar to fixing a levee?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

you're the one telling us that controlled burns would have saved the day. burden's on you to show some proof to back that up.  I've yet to see any actual expert opine that it would have made a difference with these fires, short of just control burning the entire swath of San Gabriel mountains that runs from Santa Clarita to Big Bear.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LANDS ACT THAT WILL BETTER PROTECT THE SAN GABRIEL  MOUNTAINS, ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES | Sierra Club

I guess you could just control burn the entire bottom border (green and black line). Given the serpentine nature of the mountain range, I'd says you're looking at a track over 100 miles. And that's just the San Gabriels. What about the San Jacinto mountain range that also runs along cities and towns? The Santa Ana range? We're talking hundreds of miles of foothill communities at the base of these mountains. 

Hundreds of miles of this:

San Gabriel Mountains Hiking Guide | Outdoor SoCal

Is that pretty similar to fixing a levee?

you could dam a lot of water in those mountains

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, statsman said:

Have you not realized that the LA wildfire is a huge disaster? That fire prevention and mitigation is as big of a failure as the levees in New Orleans during Katrina?

 
oh, hell. Strike that. Y’all convinced me. This disaster was unforeseeable, unmanageable and unpreventable. All government offices involved did a great job. 

All of your politically oriented and unoriginal questions/concerns have been discussed and given fairly thorough and technical answers by at least one subject matter expert in the Daily Texan thread. It might behoove you to digest the posts in that thread before popping off in the Cloak Room.

Just my two cents.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...