2 ms·

How is the water situation not obvious?

• gumby 3y ago
  Most of the article is about exactly that. For some additional context: I know from living in California, and before that Australia, that there is a tension between protecting property structures (or merely forestalling their fate) vs a more macro use of resources to contain the spread. This is the same impetus that will cause a firebreak to be cut through a forest even if it requires the use of eminent domain. This same calculus leads to the opposite class of decision in urban areas: firefighting used to be a subscription service (in parts of the USA it still is) but the problem is that if your neighbor doesn't have insurance your house could be at risk. So it made more sense to be tax supported and cover people who "don't subscribe". In the urban case the amount of water is typically low (single structure fire). In a case like this one you have to figure out where to invest your resources and it isn't always obvious. As the article points out, past misuse (protection of cash crops over the livelihood of workers) has complicated the process of making these decisions in real time.