It's fire season again

[FlatSix911]

Another heatwave and another major fire in the SF Bay Area. Last longish ride today for a while.

Nice ride video... what locale?

 

[FlatSix911]

I am working on a product to increase safety for homeowners in fire-prone areas. If it actually comes to market (not at all guaranteed) and works like I think it will it will be a big deal. 'nuff said.

Cost will be about $1000. It will provide both early warning and let you know the status of your home if you evacuate.

Interested... can you provide any additional details?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Interested... can you provide any additional details?

Basically a thermal and optical sensor that you point in the direction of likely threat (catastrophic wildfires are associated with high wind events and high wind events, on average, come from a pretty narrow range of directions in most locations) and can detect fires on the ground up to about 500 feet away. Which gives you a few minutes to run for your life -- at least a few more minutes than people in Santa Rosa, Paradise, Gatlinburg, Talent, Detroit, Gates, Fort McMurray, and others ever had.

There are other aspects and refinements that make it more generally valuable, but that is the basics.

 

[Sierratim]

The Glass fire started over the weekend. It has burned at least one winery in the Napa Valley wine region and is threating the town of Calistoga.

3 have died in the Zogg fire near Redding where my oldest son and his family live. My wife spoke to our daughter-in-law this afternoon. They're fine but evacuation orders have been isssued for areas to the NW.

 

[WattsUpDude]

Nice ride video... what locale?

The little town of Pacifica.

 

[Sierratim]

The town of Saint Helena is now under an evacuation order due to the Glass fire. Located in California's wine country there are over 400 vineyards in the surrounding area. Nearly a dozen have burned or been damaged. Dozens more are threatned by this fast moving fire. Since its Sunday start the fire has reached nearly 50,000 acres destroying or damaging over 60 structures in its path. Containment is estimated at 2%.

 

[reed scott]

The town of Saint Helena is now under an evacuation order due to the Glass fire. Located in California's wine country there are over 400 vineyards in the surrounding area. Nearly a dozen have burned or been damaged. Dozens more are threatned by this fast moving fire. Since its Sunday start the fire has reached nearly 50,000 acres destroying or damaging over 60 structures in its path. Containment is estimated at 2%.

Seems to me it's time for some change in the way California is governed. I lived up there ( Healdsburg ) for several years back in the '70s. All burned a couple years ago. Every year the same crap. I've hiked all over the Sierras. Just loved Mountain Home State Forest South of Sequoia Nat. Park and in 2008 rode out there from Texas on my KTM just to see it and those magnificent trees one more time. The forest floor debris was 3 ft thick. Just detritus. Tinder dry. But nothing changes. Why is that Californians? Why does nothing get better?

 

[JRA]

Seems to me it's time for some change in the way California is governed. I lived up there ( Healdsburg ) for several years back in the '70s. All burned a couple years ago. Every year the same crap. I've hiked all over the Sierras. Just loved Mountain Home State Forest South of Sequoia Nat. Park and in 2008 rode out there from Texas on my KTM just to see it and those magnificent trees one more time. The forest floor debris was 3 ft thick. Just detritus. Tinder dry. But nothing changes. Why is that Californians? Why does nothing get better?

This might help explain:

The federal government obviously owns the lions share but over 40% is privately owned. So who's to blame? With a 3% stake other than not legislating stricter regs for private land perhaps the governing of the state doesn't seem to be the problem.

 

[Rin]

129 million trees have died since 2010 from drought, bark beetle and climate change in National Forests in California. note that is National Forests controlled by the Feds. To remove a dead tree costs about $250 each, you do the arithmetic.
More people have built homes in the urban forest interface. So your snide comments need to be kept to yourself. 60% of forests in California are National Forests, too bad the Feds have such poor forest management. Cutting the Forest Service budgets don't help.

 

[reed scott]

This might help explain:

View attachment 67101

The federal government obviously owns the lions share but over 40% is privately owned. So who's to blame? With a 3% stake other than not legislating stricter regs for private land perhaps the governing of the state doesn't seem to be the problem.

Sorry but the state IS the problem. Only the state can take ultimate responsibility. If private property owners are not managing their lands ... the state has the authority to enforce said management and charge the owners. If the feds are not monitoring their fed forest lands and state residents are put at risk ... the state must confront and even resist the fed authority. I lived in Cali for 20 years but I escaped because of the absurd policies of the state. You can make excuses till the end of time but the blame must be placed where it is due.

 

[Sierratim]

Seems to me it's time for some change in the way California is governed. I lived up there ( Healdsburg ) for several years back in the '70s. All burned a couple years ago. Every year the same crap. I've hiked all over the Sierras. Just loved Mountain Home State Forest South of Sequoia Nat. Park and in 2008 rode out there from Texas on my KTM just to see it and those magnificent trees one more time. The forest floor debris was 3 ft thick. Just detritus. Tinder dry. But nothing changes. Why is that Californians? Why does nothing get better?

As a life long Californian, I don't know the answer except to say we get the government we vote for.

I see the same forest debris everywhere we hike in the Sierra's. You can't go off trail due the depth of the dead and bone dry branches that have accumulated for decades in many cases. Dead and diseased trees can't be harvested so they contribute more to the problem year after year. Yes, much of this is Federal land, but California environmental regs impact what the Feds will do with their lands.

Voters passed $10 billion (yes, with a 'b') in bonds to build more water storage years ago. To date, no new projects have been built. Droughts come and go here. Water shortages increase with each cycle.

Homelessness is a major problem in the biggest cities with tents, used needles, and human feces on the streets of major downtown areas.

Freeways are anything but that with commute times over an hour becoming common.

Housing is unaffordable for many, to rent or buy. Rent control is the only response so far.

Rotating power outages become common on the hottest days as the early closing of the State's one remaining necular plant is considered.

The State wants a new inheritance tax, the nation's first wealth tax, and an increase to what is already the country's highest personal tax rates. I personally have no faith that these new monies will be used to alleviate the issues that impact most Californians' daily lives.

Probably time to leave.

 

[reed scott]

As a life long Californian, I don't know the answer except to say we get the government we vote for.

I see the same forest debris everywhere we hike in the Sierra's. You can't go off trail due the depth of the dead and bone dry branches that have accumulated for decades in many cases. Dead and diseased trees can't be harvested so they contribute more to the problem year after year. Yes, much of this is Federal land, but California environmental regs impact what the Feds will do with their lands.

Voters passed $10 billion (yes, with a 'b') in bonds to build more water storage years ago. To date, no new projects have been built. Droughts come and go here. Water shortages increase with each cycle.

Homelessness is a major problem in the biggest cities with tents, used needles, and human feces on the streets of major downtown areas.

Freeways are anything but that with commute times over an hour becoming common.

Housing is unaffordable for many, to rent or buy. Rent control is the only response so far.

Rotating power outages become common on the hottest days as the early closing of the State's one remaining necular plant is considered.

The State wants a new inheritance tax, the nation's first wealth tax, and an increase to what is already the country's highest personal tax rates. I personally have no faith that these new monies will be used to alleviate the issues that impact most Californians' daily lives.

Probably time to leave.

It was time to leave 25 years ago. Or ... you can hole up in the hills and wait for the coming conflagration to sort itself out. Such a lovely land ... my people have been running off to there for three generations from Kansas/Nebraska. Now the U-hauls are going the other way. Wish I was a young man, as soon the recolonization window will be wide open.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Does anybody here know how much reducing fuel loads on lands, either by prescribed fire or manual removal, actually costs?

Typical costs for fuel reduction projects are on the order of $1000 per acre. I can speak from experience because I've paid people to do fuel reduction on my property and it is not cheap. I've also worked with my neighbor and we've carefully (extremely carefully) done small prescribed fires to reduce the risk to our homes. $1000 per acre is reasonable when you see the amount of work you have to do to make it actually happen and do so without becoming the most infamous idiot in the area.

In most states there are programs that work with private landowners to do work like that. In some cases the states will provide matching funds. Unfortunately those programs are wildly underfunded, are generally focused on timber (and not steppe lands that also burn intensely and also need fuel treatments), and very few programs are focusing on protecting homes.

The state of California has over 100 million acres. A very conservative guess is that about 25 million to 30 million acres of the state critically needs fuel reduction work.

Cal Fire does fuel reduction work on approximately 30,000 acres per year.

Just do the math. Getting California to a state where it is not dangerously flammable would cost tens of billions of dollars. Easily. Multiply that by all of the other states in the west and you're probably pushing north of 100 billion dollars. Who is going to pay for that?

Also, this is not just a California problem. Places like Texas and Florida also have high-risk wildfire situations and have wildland-urban interface situations as well.

 

[FlatSix911]

The State of California has no one to blame but itself... decades of government mismanagement supported by the best economy in the world.

The current economic situation only works for those on the dole or those who helped to create and build wealth... I'm not going anywhere.

 

[reed scott]

Does anybody here know how much reducing fuel loads on lands, either by prescribed fire or manual removal, actually costs?

Typical costs for fuel reduction projects are on the order of $1000 per acre. I can speak from experience because I've paid people to do fuel reduction on my property and it is not cheap. I've also worked with my neighbor and we've carefully (extremely carefully) done small prescribed fires to reduce the risk to our homes. $1000 per acre is reasonable when you see the amount of work you have to do to make it actually happen and do so without becoming the most infamous idiot in the area.

In most states there are programs that work with private landowners to do work like that. In some cases the states will provide matching funds. Unfortunately those programs are wildly underfunded, are generally focused on timber (and not steppe lands that also burn intensely and also need fuel treatments), and very few programs are focusing on protecting homes.

The state of California has over 100 million acres. A very conservative guess is that about 25 million to 30 million acres of the state critically needs fuel reduction work.

Cal Fire does fuel reduction work on approximately 30,000 acres per year.

Just do the math. Getting California to a state where it is not dangerously flammable would cost tens of billions of dollars. Easily. Multiply that by all of the other states in the west and you're probably pushing north of 100 billion dollars. Who is going to pay for that?

Also, this is not just a California problem. Places like Texas and Florida also have high-risk wildfire situations and have wildland-urban interface situations as well.

Let the timber interests harvest every other tree and they will pay the state to do so while cleaning up the flammable debris.

 

[Sierratim]

Does anybody here know how much reducing fuel loads on lands, either by prescribed fire or manual removal, actually costs?

Typical costs for fuel reduction projects are on the order of $1000 per acre. I can speak from experience because I've paid people to do fuel reduction on my property and it is not cheap. I've also worked with my neighbor and we've carefully (extremely carefully) done small prescribed fires to reduce the risk to our homes. $1000 per acre is reasonable when you see the amount of work you have to do to make it actually happen and do so without becoming the most infamous idiot in the area.

In most states there are programs that work with private landowners to do work like that. In some cases the states will provide matching funds. Unfortunately those programs are wildly underfunded, are generally focused on timber (and not steppe lands that also burn intensely and also need fuel treatments), and very few programs are focusing on protecting homes.

The state of California has over 100 million acres. A very conservative guess is that about 25 million to 30 million acres of the state critically needs fuel reduction work.

Cal Fire does fuel reduction work on approximately 30,000 acres per year.

Just do the math. Getting California to a state where it is not dangerously flammable would cost tens of billions of dollars. Easily. Multiply that by all of the other states in the west and you're probably pushing north of 100 billion dollars. Who is going to pay for that?

Also, this is not just a California problem. Places like Texas and Florida also have high-risk wildfire situations and have wildland-urban interface situations as well.

Yes, fuel reduction is a huge economic issue. We've spent many times more than $1,000/acre on our little 2 Ac property, most of our neighbors have spent nothing. In town a few homeowners have brought the utility's fire reduction efforts to a halt with demonstrations and lawsuits. State and local laws do little to address these issues and in fact encourage law suits that stall many projects, including fuel reduction efforts.

The State has spent 10's of billions on stalled and ill conceived projects for water diversion and ill fated high speed rail but a decreasing amount on fire reduction as more towns and even cities are threatened by fire each year. Doing the math shows that these monies would alone have nearly paid in full the cost for the 30 million acres that must be cleared of their over burdened fuel loads.

Fuel reduction will either get done before the fires come, or by the fires themselves. This is the story of Berry Creek, CA. It was a small community of 2,500 to the north of us that worked to implement well defined fuel reduction and fire break efforts. Law suits, environmental regs, and bureaucratic wrangling were all overcome over a period of several years. Work was finally begun four days before the still burning North Complex fire broke out. Berry Creek burned to the ground killing at least 10.

Our elected leaders lack the collective will to get this job done. It isn't headline grabbing or career making like a high speed rail system or a twin tunnels diversion project, but it must be done before the fires do it for us. Just ask the survivors of Berry Creek.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Let the timber interests harvest every other tree and they will pay the state to do so while cleaning up the flammable debris.

That works if (1) all of the fire-prone areas needing fuel treatment have marketable timber, and (2) the timber companies remove other fuels (notably debris and ladder fuels) when they harvest.

Neither of those things are true.

Thinking this is exclusively a California problem, or a problem of dysfunctional liberal communist governments in western states, is flat out wrong. California is just at the tip of the spear.

 

[FlatSix911]

That works if (1) all of the fire-prone areas needing fuel treatment have marketable timber, and (2) the timber companies remove other fuels (notably debris and ladder fuels) when they harvest. Neither of those things are true.

Thinking this is exclusively a California problem, or a problem of dysfunctional liberal communist governments in western states, is flat out wrong. California is just at the tip of the spear.

You are partially correct... this a California, Oregon, and Washington problem.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

You are partially correct... this a California, Oregon, and Washington problem.

Yes, I did. But you are also partially correct, as you left out Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

There have also been catastrophic wildfire losses in Tennessee (Gatlinburg in 2017) and in Florida. Although Florida is kind of a self-correcting problem, because when sea level finally rises it will be underwater and fires burn poorly underwater (unless you help them a lot).

 

[FlatSix911]