Normally Santa Ana winds blow West from Las Vegas, whereas this wind storm is blowing from the North. The wind speeds of a normal Santa Ana are 30-50MPH, with gusts around 70MPH - this wind storm is hitting 100MPH.
It's also not a forest, but scrublands - and scrublands are not like pine forests where prescribed burns are the norm. Pine forests, like up in Northern California or the mountains, regenerate after 10-30 years; scrublands can take 50-100 years, and in that time may end up being replaced by invasive grasses - which are even more prone to fire. Scrub also stabilizes the ground, where grasses do not: so burning scrublands has the wonderful side-effect of increasing landslides.
Important to note is that it is not state law that limits prescribed burns: it's NEPA, and getting a permit takes over 5 years.
It's also not about state water policy, as the reservoirs are at decent levels. There's something to be said about LA's water policy in that the city was designed to evacuate rainfall to the ocean as fast as possible via the LA River - but that's the result of policy set 80 years ago, to avoid flooding.
And just to address other aspects: no, the Klamath dam removal has nothing to do with this, because that river is near Oregon and doesn't flow down to SF or the Central Valley; and it's not about the Delta Smelt, though it should be noted there that it's protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.
What will likely not be addressed is that really - no one should have built in or near those scrublands in the first place, which is a failure of housing and land use policy dating back many decades. By disallowing density in our city centers we instead built sprawl, and that will continue to cause issues as wildfires occur.
Relevant to insurance: it was a 1988 ballot proposal that restricts insurance companies from raising rates to relevant risks. We would need to remove that, which I think would take another ballot measure.
And because few seem to know this: only 3% of forests are managed by California. The feds have 57%, and private landowners 40%.
Good comments. It still seems to boil down to policy. I do think more off-stream storage and better land management policies would help. If people insist on living in a desert, adjustments in lifestyle are necessary.
Yes, it is but the reality being that people would hate the actual policy changes necessary to make things work better - especially as it would require accepting housing being more a commodity than an investment.
This isn't solely a California issue either: allowing density reduces sprawl into floodplains or wildnerness-urban interface, reduces the amount of resources needed to maintain the infrastructure ('cause sprawl means more road, more sewage pipes, more water pipes...), and reduces the need for a car in general for many.
I just doubt that those changes will actually be made.
Yeah, a lot of urban areas have similar problems. Off-stream storage would help a lot. Atlanta needs reservoirs for drinking water, but the amount of real estate required for large reservoirs is expensive and would upset the real estate developers. Small reservoirs are a far less efficient use of construction and mechanical / electrical budgets.
All of the cities (especially Atlanta) and industries located along the Chattahoochee River sucked so much water out of the river that oyster harvesting in Apalachicola Bay has been suspended for at least 5 years. Probably nowhere near the LA disaster but a personal tragedy for me. Off-stream reservoirs could have helped maintain the flow of fresh water into the bay.
Assuming we do not stop sprawl and keep building close to wilderness, then the next logical step is greater amounts of forest/land management - and with the feds being the major owner of the forests in the West, that means lots and lots of federal expenditure.
Life in the cities for most people who do not have rural vocations could be a good thing. Cities have the potential to be very efficient. Unfortunately, they tend to devolve into chaotic ghettos run by officials elected by government employees, unions and others who are looking for the nanny state to take care of them. I loved Atlanta and Seattle when I lived there. I don't think I would like Seattle nearly as much now and, since I've recently relocated 70 miles closer to Atlanta, I think 40 miles is too close.
There is no need for the feds to own as much wilderness as they do. Much of it could easily be sold to private interests and local governments with land management strings attached.
Public lands belong to all of us, and rather than sell them off - which will do nothing to prevent wildfires - we can instead accept that wildfires are just a fact of life and not build near said wilderness.
Keep in mind that ghettos predate public assistance systems.
Let cities grow, and they'll build enough for people that want to live there.
For what it's worth, noted climate scientist, Barbra Streisand, has endorsed the Santa Ana winds' nexus to climate change.
Mr. Trump can certainly be exasperating. He doesn't know when to shut up and his blustering pronouncements and tactics infuriate a lot of people. Maybe he has done things that deserve legal punishment but the cases in NY are nothing but lawfare. That's especially true of the manufactured "crime" he was just sentenced for and the real estate valuation prosecution. I hope I get to see those court verdicts overturned.
Normally Santa Ana winds blow West from Las Vegas, whereas this wind storm is blowing from the North. The wind speeds of a normal Santa Ana are 30-50MPH, with gusts around 70MPH - this wind storm is hitting 100MPH.
It's also not a forest, but scrublands - and scrublands are not like pine forests where prescribed burns are the norm. Pine forests, like up in Northern California or the mountains, regenerate after 10-30 years; scrublands can take 50-100 years, and in that time may end up being replaced by invasive grasses - which are even more prone to fire. Scrub also stabilizes the ground, where grasses do not: so burning scrublands has the wonderful side-effect of increasing landslides.
Important to note is that it is not state law that limits prescribed burns: it's NEPA, and getting a permit takes over 5 years.
It's also not about state water policy, as the reservoirs are at decent levels. There's something to be said about LA's water policy in that the city was designed to evacuate rainfall to the ocean as fast as possible via the LA River - but that's the result of policy set 80 years ago, to avoid flooding.
And just to address other aspects: no, the Klamath dam removal has nothing to do with this, because that river is near Oregon and doesn't flow down to SF or the Central Valley; and it's not about the Delta Smelt, though it should be noted there that it's protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.
What will likely not be addressed is that really - no one should have built in or near those scrublands in the first place, which is a failure of housing and land use policy dating back many decades. By disallowing density in our city centers we instead built sprawl, and that will continue to cause issues as wildfires occur.
Relevant to insurance: it was a 1988 ballot proposal that restricts insurance companies from raising rates to relevant risks. We would need to remove that, which I think would take another ballot measure.
And because few seem to know this: only 3% of forests are managed by California. The feds have 57%, and private landowners 40%.
Good comments. It still seems to boil down to policy. I do think more off-stream storage and better land management policies would help. If people insist on living in a desert, adjustments in lifestyle are necessary.
Yes, it is but the reality being that people would hate the actual policy changes necessary to make things work better - especially as it would require accepting housing being more a commodity than an investment.
This isn't solely a California issue either: allowing density reduces sprawl into floodplains or wildnerness-urban interface, reduces the amount of resources needed to maintain the infrastructure ('cause sprawl means more road, more sewage pipes, more water pipes...), and reduces the need for a car in general for many.
I just doubt that those changes will actually be made.
Yeah, a lot of urban areas have similar problems. Off-stream storage would help a lot. Atlanta needs reservoirs for drinking water, but the amount of real estate required for large reservoirs is expensive and would upset the real estate developers. Small reservoirs are a far less efficient use of construction and mechanical / electrical budgets.
All of the cities (especially Atlanta) and industries located along the Chattahoochee River sucked so much water out of the river that oyster harvesting in Apalachicola Bay has been suspended for at least 5 years. Probably nowhere near the LA disaster but a personal tragedy for me. Off-stream reservoirs could have helped maintain the flow of fresh water into the bay.
Assuming we do not stop sprawl and keep building close to wilderness, then the next logical step is greater amounts of forest/land management - and with the feds being the major owner of the forests in the West, that means lots and lots of federal expenditure.
Life in the cities for most people who do not have rural vocations could be a good thing. Cities have the potential to be very efficient. Unfortunately, they tend to devolve into chaotic ghettos run by officials elected by government employees, unions and others who are looking for the nanny state to take care of them. I loved Atlanta and Seattle when I lived there. I don't think I would like Seattle nearly as much now and, since I've recently relocated 70 miles closer to Atlanta, I think 40 miles is too close.
There is no need for the feds to own as much wilderness as they do. Much of it could easily be sold to private interests and local governments with land management strings attached.
Public lands belong to all of us, and rather than sell them off - which will do nothing to prevent wildfires - we can instead accept that wildfires are just a fact of life and not build near said wilderness.
Keep in mind that ghettos predate public assistance systems.
Let cities grow, and they'll build enough for people that want to live there.
Just my 2 cents: there is no such thing as climate change.
For what it's worth, noted climate scientist, Barbra Streisand, has endorsed the Santa Ana winds' nexus to climate change.
Mr. Trump can certainly be exasperating. He doesn't know when to shut up and his blustering pronouncements and tactics infuriate a lot of people. Maybe he has done things that deserve legal punishment but the cases in NY are nothing but lawfare. That's especially true of the manufactured "crime" he was just sentenced for and the real estate valuation prosecution. I hope I get to see those court verdicts overturned.