3 ms·

Neither the City of LA nor any city in the world has a municipal water supply equipped to combat an urban wildfire. Embers were blown miles ahead of the fire fr

Neither the City of LA nor any city in the world has a municipal water supply equipped to combat an urban wildfire. Embers were blown miles ahead of the fire front onto new rooftops. Using guidelines from the National Fire Academy to suppress housefires, they would've needed to simultaneously deploy 10 or 12 thousand industrial-zone (not residential-zone) fire hydrants. Not only do those not exist, but there would've been no way to pressurize them simultaneously. At only hour 4 of the fire (1200 acres, assume 5% are structures), they already would've had to deploy 1800 industrial-zone fire hydrants to suppress it. Again using NFA's flow rate guidelines. The Santa Ynez Reservoir, had it been full, would've been emptied in about an hour assuming it could maintain pressure (which it couldn't). Wildfires are fundamentally fought with firebreaks and aircraft, both of which are extremely challenging in high-wind urban environments. They are contained until they burn out their fuel. They are not ever combatted with municipal water supplies. Can you state specifically what were obviously avoidable failures?

WalterBright 1y ago
> Can you state specifically what were obviously avoidable failures? Strategically removing/reducing fire-prone vegetation in the hills surrounding LA?
- nradov 1y ago
  You've got to be kidding. Have you ever even gone hiking in those hills? Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use. The areas where the wildfires spread fastest are so rough and steep that even doing it by manual labor is extremely challenging. The state and local governments simply don't have that many workers (or goats), or the budget to pay for the work. The scale of the problem is immense.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use Do the areas that are reachable. After all, somehow roads manage to get constructed. > or the budget Well, the budget for the devastation from the fires will be orders of magnitude more. Fences can also be constructed that will stop flaming debris from being pushed across the ground.
    - nradov 1y ago
      You're not making any sense. Even with roads, the terrain above and below the roads is largely inaccessible. If you haven't personally traveled through those areas then you might not be able to visualize the difficulty. As for fences, what a stupid and pointless idea. The wildfires spread largely by embers blown up in the air, not by flaming debris being pushed across the ground. And what exactly are you going to build the fences out of?
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        In the vicinity of San Francisco, in the 80s, there was a big fire in a rural area, where every house but one burned to the ground. The one was untouched. One feature it had was a low masonry wall about 20 feet away from the house. The firemen quoted in the newspaper said that wall was instrumental in keeping rolling, burning debris away from the house. Fires aren't always accompanied by high velocity winds. Lower velocity winds will pile up the embers behind various obstacles, like a low wall. Masonry walls also are an obstacle for the wind, which will slow down near the ground, and behind the wall it will be still, which will result in debris falling to the ground. The wall can also be made of chicken wire. It would be appropriate to experiment with various forms of inexpensive fencing like chicken wire. As for hills, it isn't necessary to denude them completely of vegetation. Just the parts that are easily accessed, and alongside the roads. I seriously doubt experienced wildfire firefighters would agree with your assessment that it's completely hopeless.
        estearum 1y ago
        The specific risk in the specific area we're talking about is indeed extremely dry, extremely high speed wind. If you take away the wind, we wouldn't even be talking about this problem.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        One can also do controlled burns on cold, humid and windless days.
  - jordanb 1y ago
    Interestingly hills used to be considered a horrible place to build and poor shanty towns were constructed up the hill with the nicer parts of town in the valley. People didn't want to climb up the hill every day, you had problems with access to water and supplies. The ground was prone to shifting. You also had high winds and yeah, in fire prone areas, fire goes uphill. What changed? Automobiles, reinforced concrete, retention walls, lift pumps, subsidized road construction.. People in LA with money now want their homes perched up a hill with inaccessible terrain covered in brush below it (that ensures nobody will build on their view!). Same with oceanside land by the way. If you go to the shore of the bay of Biscay in France, for instance, the "seaside" villages are built not on the beach, but a few hundred yards inland. Building right on a sandy storm-swept shoreline would have seemed ludicrous when those towns were being constructed.

WalterBright 1y ago

> Can you state specifically what were obviously avoidable failures? Strategically removing/reducing fire-prone vegetation in the hills surrounding LA?

nradov 1y ago
You've got to be kidding. Have you ever even gone hiking in those hills? Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use. The areas where the wildfires spread fastest are so rough and steep that even doing it by manual labor is extremely challenging. The state and local governments simply don't have that many workers (or goats), or the budget to pay for the work. The scale of the problem is immense.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use Do the areas that are reachable. After all, somehow roads manage to get constructed. > or the budget Well, the budget for the devastation from the fires will be orders of magnitude more. Fences can also be constructed that will stop flaming debris from being pushed across the ground.
  - nradov 1y ago
    You're not making any sense. Even with roads, the terrain above and below the roads is largely inaccessible. If you haven't personally traveled through those areas then you might not be able to visualize the difficulty. As for fences, what a stupid and pointless idea. The wildfires spread largely by embers blown up in the air, not by flaming debris being pushed across the ground. And what exactly are you going to build the fences out of?
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      In the vicinity of San Francisco, in the 80s, there was a big fire in a rural area, where every house but one burned to the ground. The one was untouched. One feature it had was a low masonry wall about 20 feet away from the house. The firemen quoted in the newspaper said that wall was instrumental in keeping rolling, burning debris away from the house. Fires aren't always accompanied by high velocity winds. Lower velocity winds will pile up the embers behind various obstacles, like a low wall. Masonry walls also are an obstacle for the wind, which will slow down near the ground, and behind the wall it will be still, which will result in debris falling to the ground. The wall can also be made of chicken wire. It would be appropriate to experiment with various forms of inexpensive fencing like chicken wire. As for hills, it isn't necessary to denude them completely of vegetation. Just the parts that are easily accessed, and alongside the roads. I seriously doubt experienced wildfire firefighters would agree with your assessment that it's completely hopeless.
      - estearum 1y ago
        The specific risk in the specific area we're talking about is indeed extremely dry, extremely high speed wind. If you take away the wind, we wouldn't even be talking about this problem.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        One can also do controlled burns on cold, humid and windless days.
- jordanb 1y ago
  Interestingly hills used to be considered a horrible place to build and poor shanty towns were constructed up the hill with the nicer parts of town in the valley. People didn't want to climb up the hill every day, you had problems with access to water and supplies. The ground was prone to shifting. You also had high winds and yeah, in fire prone areas, fire goes uphill. What changed? Automobiles, reinforced concrete, retention walls, lift pumps, subsidized road construction.. People in LA with money now want their homes perched up a hill with inaccessible terrain covered in brush below it (that ensures nobody will build on their view!). Same with oceanside land by the way. If you go to the shore of the bay of Biscay in France, for instance, the "seaside" villages are built not on the beach, but a few hundred yards inland. Building right on a sandy storm-swept shoreline would have seemed ludicrous when those towns were being constructed.