4 ms·

I think this page plays down the importance of fire to a healthy redwood ecosystem. The trees seem to depend on a fire running through every so often and burni

I think this page plays down the importance of fire to a healthy redwood ecosystem. The trees seem to depend on a fire running through every so often and burning out the scrub under the canopy. Of course, this isn't how old-world forests work so when European-Americans started building cabins en masse up in SLV in the 1920's, they put them right next to large trees and we did everything we could to limit fire. While there are a limited number of structures in the park itself, almost 1500 structures were destroyed during the CZU fire in the adjacent communities. My old house was 10 miles away from the park and was across Big Basin Way and Boulder Creek from neighborhoods that were decimated. (TEN MILES from the park and they were still decimated.) We can't have the same type of design, with houses right next to trees. Once you have people living up there, the likelihood you can convince people to do a "controlled" burn gets pretty low. Then the fuel builds up for another 100 years and it destroys EVERYTHING in its path. And what do you do for families whose homes were destroyed? Of the nearly 1500 structures destroyed, only a handful of building permits have been issued to rebuild. This is a great article about how the forest survives fire, but the policy and politics behind how we got to the CZU fire are complex and sometimes pretty subtle.

billiam 3y ago
>And what do you do for families whose homes were destroyed? Of the nearly 1500 structures destroyed, only a handful of building permits have been issued to rebuild. You can't let them rebuild in place. Your points are spot on (a new survey shows 1/3 of Californians live in the urban/wildland interface where wildfires will destroy most dwellings) and it requires new zoning, new fire legislation on fire insurance, and of course the ability of people to live in higher density through infill and careful planning. The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves.
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  That would be extremely unpopular. Say you bought a house in the suburbs. Everything's fine. Then someone comes in and says "Hey. We didn't know there was a problem with the soil under your home, so we're just going to come in one night and destroy it. And you don't get to sell it or file an insurance claim. And we're not going to compensate you for it. You just need to pay off your mortgage, even though we destroyed the house." Changing zoning is a great idea, but alienating property owners from the value of their purchase is not. The only solution I can think of is eminent domain, but it's structurally a little more difficult in California than authoritarian states like Texas that just come in and grab your house to give it to the local baseball team. So you would have to pass the legislation in Sacramento to authorize the creation of a special district to manage the confiscation of property. Then you would have to approve the funds, cause this wouldn't be an improvement district and you wouldn't be funding the district from the tax on the property. Then you have do the confiscation, and sheesh, the San Lorenzo Valley is sort of the definition of "weird deed restrictions." And once the state (or maybe the open space trust???) has the land, it has to pay for remediation so the soil doesn't wash away and cause landslides that cover the road in three feet of mud. And you have to do all this before the next big rain event so the roads don't completely wash away. So... eminent domain isn't a bad idea, per se. But it's HARD. (queue Jethro Tull's "Farm on the Freeway")
  - lazide 3y ago
    Eh, the counties where this happened in likely couldn’t afford to eminent domain this problem away. It’s their tax base they’d be nuking! If it was a legitimate problem, you’ve described what happens sometimes to folks buying homes. It’s a risk of ownership. Could be sinkholes. Could be subsidence. Could be a toxic waste dump. Lawsuits fly, etc. However, long term it usually boils down to aligned incentives. If the people at risk had to pay for the risk (either by taxes or directly), they’d either move - or cover the costs and reap the good or bad consequences (including bankruptcy/loss of assets).
    - retrocryptid 3y ago
      We're talking specifically about Santa Cruz county. SLV is responsible for waaaay more county expenditures than revenue, that might explain why they're slow-balling building permits up along Highway 236.
      - w7b7s7 3y ago
        The county -- via its contract with 4Leaf -- has already issued 180+ build permits specifically for fire rebuilds. The number of completed homes is low. The number of issued build permits is not.
  - rcpt 3y ago
    This isn't the suburbs. This is exurban sprawl deep into the redwoods.
    - retrocryptid 3y ago
      Yes. That's the point. It's people building summer cabins 100 years ago deep in the woods and then people moving into them year round and building WAY more than should have been allowed. The problem isn't just that people build houses in places they probably shouldn't have, it's that those houses represent the primary wealth of a number of a number of not-entirely-upper-class families. I mean sure... if you're banking a couple mil per quarter working in the venture mines, you can afford to give up your house in the woods. But for the majority of people who live there, that would be financially ruinous, and thus... unpopular.
- whyenot 3y ago
  > The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves. There are very few people who actually live among the redwoods. This is a problem that will take care of itself as the insurance policies of those living in the most risky places are canceled. This is already happening (it has happened to me). A far greater risk is the number of people who live in a WUI and are right next to coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and chaparral. A lot more people are affected by this because these are the plant communities that ring many of California's urban areas, and many of these communities also regularly burn; for their health, they actually need to burn.
- rcpt 3y ago
  Right. LA Times has a good write up, Rebuild, Reburn https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-reburn-greenville-dixie-fire-recovery https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-...
- thghtihadanacct 3y ago
  Groves? If you look at a map all that green between Watsonville and the city are Redwoods. Thats the grove.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  If we legalized building massive amounts of housing in California cities, this would be one of many problems that mostly disappeared.
nomel 3y ago
> The trees seem to depend on a fire This is more of a known fact [1]. But, it goes further than that! In California, there are several pyrophytes [2] that can't germinate without fire. [3] [1] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-grow/15094/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-gro... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte [3] https://tabletopwhale.com/img/posts/LivingWithFire.pdf https://tabletopwhale.com/img/posts/LivingWithFire.pdf
TinkersW 3y ago
Coastal redwoods do not depend on fire. You are confusing them with the giant sequoia.
- javman 3y ago
  Maybe not "depend on", but "adapted to" ... "Coast redwood are adapted to fire and other disturbance. Seeds germinate best on mineral soil as is exposed by flooding, fire, or wind throw for seed germination and establishment." "The fire return interval in coast redwood forests varies drastically with latitude, microclimate and distance from the coast. In general, forests that are further north, closer to the coast, or located on mesic sites tend to burn less frequently." From https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/firemanagement_fireecology_vegtypes_redwoods.htm https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/firemanagement_fir...
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    Sempervirens can reproduce without fire, but are healthier with a good fire now and again. My guess is that's one of the reasons the trees in big basin look sickly compared to the ones up north. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-021-00098-0 https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408...
  - TinkersW 3y ago
    Well I grew up in the redwoods up in Humboldt, it is generally far to wet up there for a forest fire even occur, and if they do it doesn't spread much. I think flooding is a far more realistic, as that happens every winter. It has gotten much warmer and sunnier in recent years because of climate change, so perhaps forest fires will start to be a thing. Also they don't even drop seeds until they are like 200 years old-- with all the logging that has been done most redwoods aren't growing from seeds these days, but from cuttings & off of existing stumps/roots.
m463 3y ago
I wonder about the area ecosystem - I think it got unbalanced after the 1906 earthquake in san francisco that caused them to (tragically) log all the redwoods. What has grown back is groups of ~ 7 redwoods clustered around the former trunk of a felled old-growth redwood. They are more numerous and denser. I suspect with several trees competing, there will never be the thousand-year-old ecosystem again in the area.
thghtihadanacct 3y ago
There are controlled burns around UCSC and towards Big Basin every year. Also, not all of the 1500 structures that burned were housing that needed rebuilt (think old sheds, etc)... and there are few to no houses in Big Basin anyway. Those owners that arent rebuilding from CZU fire have many reasons not to but rarely is it because they arent allowed a permit.

billiam 3y ago

>And what do you do for families whose homes were destroyed? Of the nearly 1500 structures destroyed, only a handful of building permits have been issued to rebuild. You can't let them rebuild in place. Your points are spot on (a new survey shows 1/3 of Californians live in the urban/wildland interface where wildfires will destroy most dwellings) and it requires new zoning, new fire legislation on fire insurance, and of course the ability of people to live in higher density through infill and careful planning. The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves.

retrocryptid 3y ago
That would be extremely unpopular. Say you bought a house in the suburbs. Everything's fine. Then someone comes in and says "Hey. We didn't know there was a problem with the soil under your home, so we're just going to come in one night and destroy it. And you don't get to sell it or file an insurance claim. And we're not going to compensate you for it. You just need to pay off your mortgage, even though we destroyed the house." Changing zoning is a great idea, but alienating property owners from the value of their purchase is not. The only solution I can think of is eminent domain, but it's structurally a little more difficult in California than authoritarian states like Texas that just come in and grab your house to give it to the local baseball team. So you would have to pass the legislation in Sacramento to authorize the creation of a special district to manage the confiscation of property. Then you would have to approve the funds, cause this wouldn't be an improvement district and you wouldn't be funding the district from the tax on the property. Then you have do the confiscation, and sheesh, the San Lorenzo Valley is sort of the definition of "weird deed restrictions." And once the state (or maybe the open space trust???) has the land, it has to pay for remediation so the soil doesn't wash away and cause landslides that cover the road in three feet of mud. And you have to do all this before the next big rain event so the roads don't completely wash away. So... eminent domain isn't a bad idea, per se. But it's HARD. (queue Jethro Tull's "Farm on the Freeway")
- lazide 3y ago
  Eh, the counties where this happened in likely couldn’t afford to eminent domain this problem away. It’s their tax base they’d be nuking! If it was a legitimate problem, you’ve described what happens sometimes to folks buying homes. It’s a risk of ownership. Could be sinkholes. Could be subsidence. Could be a toxic waste dump. Lawsuits fly, etc. However, long term it usually boils down to aligned incentives. If the people at risk had to pay for the risk (either by taxes or directly), they’d either move - or cover the costs and reap the good or bad consequences (including bankruptcy/loss of assets).
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    We're talking specifically about Santa Cruz county. SLV is responsible for waaaay more county expenditures than revenue, that might explain why they're slow-balling building permits up along Highway 236.
    - w7b7s7 3y ago
      The county -- via its contract with 4Leaf -- has already issued 180+ build permits specifically for fire rebuilds. The number of completed homes is low. The number of issued build permits is not.
- rcpt 3y ago
  This isn't the suburbs. This is exurban sprawl deep into the redwoods.
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    Yes. That's the point. It's people building summer cabins 100 years ago deep in the woods and then people moving into them year round and building WAY more than should have been allowed. The problem isn't just that people build houses in places they probably shouldn't have, it's that those houses represent the primary wealth of a number of a number of not-entirely-upper-class families. I mean sure... if you're banking a couple mil per quarter working in the venture mines, you can afford to give up your house in the woods. But for the majority of people who live there, that would be financially ruinous, and thus... unpopular.
whyenot 3y ago
> The cost of housing in the Bay Area is a closely related problem, but the bottom line is that we have to let fire move through the coastal redwoods every few decades, and that means we cannot build tinderbox houses right next to those groves. There are very few people who actually live among the redwoods. This is a problem that will take care of itself as the insurance policies of those living in the most risky places are canceled. This is already happening (it has happened to me). A far greater risk is the number of people who live in a WUI and are right next to coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, and chaparral. A lot more people are affected by this because these are the plant communities that ring many of California's urban areas, and many of these communities also regularly burn; for their health, they actually need to burn.
rcpt 3y ago
Right. LA Times has a good write up, Rebuild, Reburn https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-reburn-greenville-dixie-fire-recovery https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-27/rebuild-...
thghtihadanacct 3y ago
Groves? If you look at a map all that green between Watsonville and the city are Redwoods. Thats the grove.
BurningFrog 3y ago
If we legalized building massive amounts of housing in California cities, this would be one of many problems that mostly disappeared.

nomel 3y ago

> The trees seem to depend on a fire This is more of a known fact [1]. But, it goes further than that! In California, there are several pyrophytes [2] that can't germinate without fire. [3] [1] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-grow/15094/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/giant-sequoia-needs-fire-gro... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte [3] https://tabletopwhale.com/img/posts/LivingWithFire.pdf https://tabletopwhale.com/img/posts/LivingWithFire.pdf

TinkersW 3y ago

Coastal redwoods do not depend on fire. You are confusing them with the giant sequoia.

javman 3y ago
Maybe not "depend on", but "adapted to" ... "Coast redwood are adapted to fire and other disturbance. Seeds germinate best on mineral soil as is exposed by flooding, fire, or wind throw for seed germination and establishment." "The fire return interval in coast redwood forests varies drastically with latitude, microclimate and distance from the coast. In general, forests that are further north, closer to the coast, or located on mesic sites tend to burn less frequently." From https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/firemanagement_fireecology_vegtypes_redwoods.htm https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/firemanagement_fir...
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  Sempervirens can reproduce without fire, but are healthier with a good fire now and again. My guess is that's one of the reasons the trees in big basin look sickly compared to the ones up north. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-021-00098-0 https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408...
- TinkersW 3y ago
  Well I grew up in the redwoods up in Humboldt, it is generally far to wet up there for a forest fire even occur, and if they do it doesn't spread much. I think flooding is a far more realistic, as that happens every winter. It has gotten much warmer and sunnier in recent years because of climate change, so perhaps forest fires will start to be a thing. Also they don't even drop seeds until they are like 200 years old-- with all the logging that has been done most redwoods aren't growing from seeds these days, but from cuttings & off of existing stumps/roots.

m463 3y ago

I wonder about the area ecosystem - I think it got unbalanced after the 1906 earthquake in san francisco that caused them to (tragically) log all the redwoods. What has grown back is groups of ~ 7 redwoods clustered around the former trunk of a felled old-growth redwood. They are more numerous and denser. I suspect with several trees competing, there will never be the thousand-year-old ecosystem again in the area.

thghtihadanacct 3y ago

There are controlled burns around UCSC and towards Big Basin every year. Also, not all of the 1500 structures that burned were housing that needed rebuilt (think old sheds, etc)... and there are few to no houses in Big Basin anyway. Those owners that arent rebuilding from CZU fire have many reasons not to but rarely is it because they arent allowed a permit.