California fires

[Ed I]

I grew up in California and am familiar with many of the areas that are burning, particularly the Cedar Glen and Lake Arrowhead areas. My grandparents and both my aunts and uncles had homes there. While its horrible to watch peoples homes to go up in flames ,I can't help wondering if its okay to expect the taxpayer to fund the cost of fighting these fires. If you build in an area of high fire danger should you not accept the consequences. I am also very concerned that these fires will help congress pass "Forest Health Legislation" that is poorly thought out.

[brad]

hey people want wilderness preservation, guess waht, the wilderness burns to the ground every once in a while.

its a political thing really.

[Zeno]

My sister lived in Crestline (near Lake Arrowhead) for about 3 years before moving back to Oregon about 2 years ago. I use to visit during the Holidays. It was a quiet mountain community. I wondered about fire protection then, as I do now. The area is steep and obviously prone to fire. The cost to fight fires on National forest land is provided by the taxpayers - for private residence, and property - I have to assume it is a combination of city, county, and state funds depending on the municipality that the owner lives under. Others may know more.

As always there will be political consequences and finger pointing and also secondary problems. The denuded hillsides will be more prone to mudslides, landslides, and fast runoff that will cause extensive erosion and sediment build up in steams.

-Zeno

[Ray Zee]

the mandate for the forest service is to protect- life then property , then the forest. totally screwed up.
what they really protect is the insurance industry with our money.
yes they are already passing the healthy forest initiative. which if read is really just a bill to give away our trees to the lumber industry for their profits.
they spent over 25 million around my immediate area to protect maybe 20 old cabins this year. saved the insurance companies about a million.

[John Feeney]

I thought this was a pretty good article on the fires:

The best preventive measure, of course, is to return to the native-Californian practice of regular, small-scale burning of old brush and chaparral. This is now textbook policy, but the suburbanization of the fire terrain makes it almost impossible to implement it on any adequate scale. Homeowners despise the temporary pollution of "controlled burns" and local officials fear the legal consequences of escaped fires. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1028-01.htm)

We don't live anywhere near the areas of the fires, but it's sure been a strange week here. We woke up Monday to a bizzarely pretty yellow light and little flakes of ash coming down like a light snow. Then instead of "snow days" the kids got "fire days" off from school. Nearly all freeways were closed for a couple of days, which is pretty unthinkable if you know Southern Cal. An awful lot of homes were destoyed. On some streets in Scripps Ranch every single house was lost. While lives were lost too, fortunately the numbers were more modest.

[Ed I]

Thanks. It was a good article. I spent a lot of time in the Lake Arrowhead area while growing up. Its hard to imagine the area without trees. In my first year(71) of school we studied the effects of air pollution on the pines in the San Bernadino Mtns. If memory serves there was concern that smog was weakening the trees. Now I see that most of the trees were dead, killed by bark beetles. The bark beetle cannot generally infest a healthy forest because the tree pitches the bug out as it bores into the trunk.

I see that hte senate passed a version of Healthy Forest legislation. Its interesting to note that the bill did not address the increasing numbers of homes in the forest.

Its also interesting that I don't here any testimony from fire ecologists and behaviorists touting the merits of this bill. Loggers seemed to be pleased though. Certainly doesn't address the situation in the chapparel ecosytems.

[Ray Zee]

sounds good but burning the understory doesnt do much except make the fire a little smaller. the trees still burn. but you get more fires as the sun gets to the ground more and dries everything out. it is just that in some dry years you have big fires. say-- nature-- a few times. thats the rub of life in areas of no pavement and concrete. burning to get rid of brush ends up setting off more unintentional fires than if you left it alone. plus like the article says who wants smoke all the time.

homes can all be saved by clearing brush around the house and installing a sprinkler system on the roof. it works most everytime. even in the biggest fires. when you live in the woods you cant build conventional style all the time and expect city results. those that do have to sometimes get bad results.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
While its horrible to watch peoples homes to go up in flames ,I can't help wondering if its okay to expect the taxpayer to fund the cost of fighting these fires. If you build in an area of high fire danger should you not accept the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Yes. And No.

1. Yes. People who choose to live in such areas (like my parents who live in Running Springs) must be responsible for making their areas as safe as possible - a duty, if you will.

Most residents (like mom and pops) have fire insurance and clear their brush without having to be made to do so by the F.D. and work to protect their trees - My dad has bought some expensive solution to help protect healthy trees from bark beetle. However, many have shirked their duties, which is indefensible under the circumstances. For the last year, residents have been warned (even cited) to remove dead trees from their lots. Citing money issues (about $1,000 per tree) some have ignored their duties, some have dragged their feet hoping a disaster would be declared and the National Guard and Forest Service would remove the trees for them - BAD.

Not until the bridge fire hit in September did these irresponsible residents start getting a move on.

I believe the residents have a further duty to get the hell out of dodge when the F.D. asks them too. Being on a mountain makes the situation much worse and the F.D. should not have to worry about the "heros" that need last minute rescue. I understand you have a right to stay on your property, but the unique conditions associated with mountain fire should override that right.

2. No. Tax money is indeed a form of social welfare (in theory) Just as one is not expected to pave their own street or raise their own power lines, one should not have to bear the cost of upkeeping a National Forest. Should residents of L.A. have to turn down Federal/State money from the Rodney King riots? What about earthquakes - everyone knows California is in an earthquake zone. Many areas of the county have particular risks that can be avoided by NOT LIVING THERE, but the social utility tends to outweigh the costs of the risks.

Further, its not like these communities are privately planned by the individual homeowners...Government agencies zone the areas, and plan the communities - keeping in mind the area itself. In a sense, the government warrants the area as habitable, and one should be able to live there.

Thus, the final point: many residents and organizations have been trying to bring the dangerous conditions to the attention of Sacramento. The situation called out for an assessment and intervention. Arguably, the whole mountain should have been condemned as unsafe and residents forced leave until the dead trees were cleared. The state is involved from beginning to end, I don't see a problem with tax money being used for relief.

[Ed I]

I agree with you that the homeowner should take actions to reduce fire risk. I struggle with who should pay though. If you build in a flood plain should you be eligible for tax subsidized flood insurance?

What measures did your dad take to protect against the bark beetle? My understanding is that healthy trees pitch out the bug when it bores in. Stressed trees are succeptible whether its drought or disease or overcrowding, etc. I read that some 90% of the trees have beetle attacks and wonder if any healthy trees are left.

A man in Cedar Glen area of the San Bernadino mountains was able to save three nhomes on his property by building a 60K fire system with 2 5,500 gallon water tanks. He was able to keep the buildings and grounds wet. This is where my grandfather lived and where I spent many great summer vacations. My grandfather died a fewq yrs back and his cabin weas sold. I wonder if it still stands. 350 homes were destroyed.

[John Feeney]

Interesting. I figured there might be some flaw in the "controled burn" approach.

I'd never heard of the roof sprinkler system thing. I don't think any of the houses near San Diego had those. Maybe some further out in areas like Julian did. But that should be publicized more. I've heard of people occasinoally succeeding at saving their house by hosing down the roof. Sounds like a more elaborate version of the same thing.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
If memory serves there was concern that smog was weakening the trees. Now I see that most of the trees were dead, killed by bark beetles. The bark beetle cannot generally infest a healthy forest...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, one more indication that the earth is in trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
Its also interesting that I don't here any testimony from fire ecologists and behaviorists touting the merits of this bill. Loggers seemed to be pleased though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another bad sign.

So we have mismanaged, dying forests, massive loss of the coral reefs (mostly gone now in the Carribean), loss of the Amazon rainforest (talk about fires!), dwindling animal species as a result of poachers/buyers, global warming, antibioitcs and whatever else in water supplies, dairly products and meats... This list is no fun.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that the homeowner should take actions to reduce fire risk. I struggle with who should pay though. If you build in a flood plain should you be eligible for tax subsidized flood insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

That stretches the boundaries of the analogy - If you create your own danger, you should be responsible. In this case, the danger pre-exists yet communities, etc. have been zoned and planned; and rightfully so as the utility of doing so outweighs the dangers (especially, as other have pointed out, there are better ways to protect from those dangers).

[ QUOTE ]
What measures did your dad take to protect against the bark beetle? My understanding is that healthy trees pitch out the bug when it bores in. Stressed trees are succeptible whether its drought or disease or overcrowding, etc. I read that some 90% of the trees have beetle attacks and wonder if any healthy trees are left.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has some liquid that is mixed with water, then poured in a trench around the tree-base. I do not know much about it other than that it costs about $100 per 32 oz., or so. Healthy trees do pitch out the beetle, however, that assumes adequate water supply. Droughts have made many trees succeptible.

I hope the house you mention in Cedar Glen made it.