Consequences/Concerns of LA Fires

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Finally, we need to get off the idea that this is a political issue. We got where we are today as a function of at least 70 years of post-war policy and explosive population growth. Both parties have had extended periods in charge during that time. Add the intensification of the wind situation and increased dryness (both due to climate change) and some new ideas will be needed...and somebody will inevitably feel b*tthurt about at least some of the results.

Whether it is or isn't, you can be damn sure that it will be politicized.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Reasonable points.

I suspect clean up will be consolidated, rather than on an individual level, at least to some extent.

Agree that the Feds should be involved and probably will be. Assume the foot dragging will negate the big words that will undoubtably be offered, but I hope I am wrong.

The dams removed were old, small & mostly filled with silt. The dams thing is something the pot stirrers like to bring up (bear in mind I am not a big Newsome fan), sort of like raking the forest floor.

We've had a number of reservoirs built since 1969. Google AI is wrong on that question (as it is so frequently). I suspect that Google's difficulty relates to trying to understand that an artificial lake is generally also a reservoir. Look up Diamond Valley Lake, as an example. Massive. Completed 2003. New Melones was (IIRC) 1980. Colusa lake and Sites are still in planning; I'm guessing they are 8-10 years away from being useful.

As for global warming and climate change, it is pretty clear that the loss of our polar ice caps and their ability to moderate temperature extremes, the global average temp increase (a degree or two average temp increase in CA over the past 50 years), along with the ocean temp increase and related changes in flow patterns are making for more extreme weather here. The hurricane situation elsewhere is similar. I think this makes a case for more reservoirs/water storage, and CA has at least two big ones in process. The process is not fast; from start to finish I bet they both take close to 15 years. California's water politics acts as a real brake on getting stuff built. The wingnuts like to blame it all on various groups, from environmentalists to lawyers. But the real issue is that the Colorado river has been allocated at over 100% of its flow, and every agricultural interest (there are several), industrial interest (there are several) and community is fighting for its piece. We have farmers growing rice in the Sacramento Delta. Ag as a whole takes something like 75-80% of the water, and some of the idiots who have first call on water are still using row irrigation, whereas those who have lower priority have done wonders with high tech irrigation (we are every bit as advanced in irrigation as the Israelis; but only the ones who have to do that because of low water priority have bothered). It would be hard to find a more contentious issue in California's history than water, and that is no different today. It is the politics between interest groups, not between parties, that makes water so difficult and water projects so slow to bear fruit.

The frustrating thing will be the "how could we have ever planned for this/ how could we have known something like this would happen" narrative that will no doubt be raised by those in power or have responsibility over public resources. Yet at every turn the same people have been shaping policy based on addressing the issue that they will no doubt will point the finger toward - anthropomorphic climate change.

 

[425cougfan]

The frustrating thing will be the "how could we have ever planned for this/ how could we have known something like this would happen" narrative that will no doubt be raised by those in power or have responsibility over public resources. Yet at every turn the same people have been shaping policy based on addressing the issue that they will no doubt will point the finger toward - anthropomorphic climate change.

Put a bit less eloquently but more directly, with those people constantly claiming that we were in for longer and worse fire seasons, more intense fires, and so on, how do they then cut resources and otherwise fail to prioritize fire prevention and mitigation and otherwise address these risks competently, especially when they control all relevant avenues at all levels of government to address it?

Put more neutrally, how would anyone justify not only being aware of a particular risk, but being quite vocal about it, and then fail to address that risk? It only would make sense if they didn't believe the risk really was that bad, demonstrated poor judgment by gambling that the risk wouldn't be realized, or both.

This goes the other way, too ... e.g., if Republicans were to campaign on risks they claimed came with that huge surge in migration under the prior administration, but then didn't actually do anything about those risks while having the power to do so at whatever levels of the government they had control of at the relevant time, they'd be appropriately blamed for having been full of shit about the risks or having failed to address them, regardless of why those risks were presented (i.e., even though it occurred on their watch).

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The frustrating thing will be the "how could we have ever planned for this/ how could we have known something like this would happen" narrative that will no doubt be raised by those in power or have responsibility over public resources. Yet at every turn the same people have been shaping policy based on addressing the issue that they will no doubt will point the finger toward - anthropomorphic climate change.

It's just a likely contributor to the severity, not the cause and nobody in a position of responsibility is saying otherwise. Taihtsat