Southern California Wildfires - Reality, Conspiracy Theories and Political Hype

[Z.W. Wolf]

What is the cause of these massive wildfires and fires in suburban areas.?

I'm going to start with a post about what the reality is. These factors have come together:

-Two wet years which caused significant plant growth.
-Lack of rainfall during the first months of California's wet season - October to April
-Above normal temperatures for several months.
-Unusually severe winds.

Singly, these factors would be significant. Together, they are critical.


This article was written shortly before the fires started.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...y-enters-drought-as-forecast-remains-bone-dry

Much of the region, including the majority of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and San Diego counties, has fallen into moderate drought conditions, according to a U.S. Drought Monitor map released this week. The last time the Southland saw similarly dry conditions was in early 2023, as the state was exiting a punishing, years-long drought thanks to an exceptional kickoff to the wet season.

Prior to the recent drought report, conditions in Southern California were considered to be "abnormally dry" for the last few weeks. Much of the Central Valley remains in that category.

"Above-normal temperatures and below-normal precipitation resulted in expansion of drought in Arizona, California and Nevada," the new report said.

"Typically we see, at this time of year, close to 4 inches of rain, which would usually be enough to squash any significant fire weather concerns," Kittell said. "But because we haven't had anything close to that, and because we've had a really active two years [of plant growth] ... there's a lot to burn."

He said more red flag warnings are likely to be issued, which were in place in December when the Franklin fire in Malibu broke out, and in November when the Mountain fire tore through southern Ventura County.

A Summary (not quotation)
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/nx-s...event-was-anything-but?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Santa Ana winds, a regular phenomenon in Southern California during colder months, have been playing a significant role in fueling the massive wildfires in the region. These winds originate when high-pressure systems form over the Nevada and Utah deserts, driving air westward toward California's coastal mountains. As the air descends from the mountains, it compresses and heats up rapidly—warming by about 10 degrees Celsius per kilometer of descent. For instance, air descending two kilometers can warm up by 20 degrees Celsius, or roughly 36 degrees Fahrenheit, creating hot, dry, and fast-moving winds.

The winds further accelerate as they descend to the valleys, funneled by mountain ranges much like how wind speeds up between city blocks. This effect, explained by experts like Mingfang Ting of Columbia University and Mike Wofford of the National Weather Service, results in particularly strong and impactful winds. Normally confined to specific areas, this year's Santa Ana winds have been unusually widespread and intense, reaching areas like Pasadena, which typically experience no winds during such events.

Mike Wofford described this year's Santa Ana winds as being "on steroids," significantly more destructive and covering a larger area than usual. While the strongest winds have passed, their lingering effects, combined with ongoing wildfires, present a persistent danger. Santa Ana winds often continue into spring, meaning the risk of wildfire will remain if dry conditions persist. This combination of factors underscores the challenging battle firefighters and residents face in mitigating the effects of these extreme weather events.


Other factors

-These suburban areas adjoin rural areas and are built on steep topography.
A dangerous place to build and live. Neighborhoods in flood zones are going to flood, and neighborhoods in hurricane zones are going to be destroyed by hurricanes. These neighborhoods are built in fire zones. They're going to burn sometime or other.

The more southern parts of Altadena less so. I'm guessing that the wind pushed airborne burning material down into that area.


-Inadequate infrastructure.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/los-angeles-wildfires-water-scarcity

Over the past decade, California has experienced historic drought conditions, which have resulted in water-restricting policies. And while the past two rainy winters have offered some reprieve in Southern California, 2025 has been off to a record-dry start. Climate scientist Daniel Swain referred to this swing between extreme rain and drought as "hydroclimate whiplash," which his research found is exacerbated by global warming.

While this boom-bust precipitation cycle creates particularly dangerous conditions for fires, it has allowed for California to see its previously shrinking water reserves fill in recent months. So while drought has been a persistent problem in Southern California, it wasn't behind the cause of the city's water shortages. It also can't be chalked up to restrictions protecting the endangered Delta smelt, a tiny fish that has proved to be a perennially politically popular scapegoat for water issues. The fish's protected status limits water usage in its Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta habitat, which some have argued should be freed up for human consumption.

Quiñones instead explained it as an issue of access.

During that roughly 15-hour window from the Palisades Fire sparking and the available water tanks running dry, Quiñones said the demand for water was four times the norm, causing water pressure to lower. This made it difficult to achieve the force needed to get water into the higher-elevation tanks, particularly at the rate necessary to address a fire moving five football fields a minute, boosted by the gusty Santa Ana winds.

"We pushed the system to the extreme," Quiñones said during a Wednesday news conference. "We're fighting a wildfire with an urban water system. And that is really challenging."

This is the JPL campus. The tanks to the north are water tanks. A really familiar sight in S. Calif. (That's where I'm from btw.)

This kind of tank is what supplies water to the neighborhoods built on and around the hills. Water is pumped into them, and gravity generates water pressure. Once they run dry, it's a long process to fill them. With the water pressure reduced in the general system, that process took longer.

These tanks are there above neighborhoods to do the wash and water the lawn. The fire hydrants in the area are meant to supply water to fight ordinary house fires. This mundane infrastructure completely collapsed in some areas. I'm skeptical that this made any real difference. This kind of massive event couldn't be contained by fire engines and hoses.

Most of the tanks in question were filled before the winds came along, but they're not very big.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rnia-fire-hydrants-la-reservoir-b2677454.html

A patchwork of municipal waters systems feed L.A., drawing water from 200 different utilities, supporting a system designed to handle lower-level, urban fires, not multiple large-scale wild fires descending from the hills.

"We are looking at a situation that is just completely not part of any domestic water system design," Marty Adams, a former general manager and chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, told The New York Times. "If this is going to be a norm, there is going to have to be some new thinking about how systems are designed."

"It was like a worst-case scenario, but I think we should be planning for those worst case scenarios," Faith Kearns, a wildfire and water expert at Arizona State University, added in an interview with National Geographic. "You can't predict everything, but also, I do think this is where we're headed."

Faced with a series of fires moving as fast as five football fields per minute, this system buckled.

By Wednesday, three 1 million gallon, high-elevation water tanks supplying the hard-hit Pacific Palisades went dry. High demand not only drained the tanks, and drew from water that would've been used to replenish them, but it also lowered pressure within the overall hydrant system, further straining the ability of firefighters to quickly get water.

"We had a tremendous demand on our system in the Palisades," Janisse Quiñones, chief engineer at Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said at a Wednesday briefing. "We pushed the system to the extreme."

Some of that demand would've been met by a 117 million gallon reservoir complex in the Pacific Palisades, but it sat out of use for repairs as the fires in the Palisades began. Officials estimate that had the Santa Ynez Reservoir been online, it would've cut demand on the area's water system from four times to three times as high as normal.

"You still would have ended up with serious drops in pressure," former Department of Water and Power general manager Adams told The Los Angeles Times. "Would Santa Ynez [Reservoir] have helped? Yes, to some extent. Would it have saved the day? I don't think so."

-Aerial tankers were grounded by severe winds for some time in some places.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rnia-fire-hydrants-la-reservoir-b2677454.html

Making matters worse, the high winds that helped spread the fires also temporarily prevented officials from using aerial drops of water which could've been pulled from the ocean or Southern California's reservoirs, which are currently sitting above historical levels.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I was in Kindergarten when this happened and I remember watching this on our 25 inch Bell & Howell B&W TV.





Remember, this is 1961.

22:00

These pictures were taken by UCLA's meteorological department. The same picture, when increased to many times its original speed, reveals a concerning phenomenon. Deep within the smoke, burning shingles are carried a mile and a half to start new fires. This is shown by black smoke columns that grow and join the main fire approaching from the east.

This leapfrog phenomenon, coupled with powerful ground winds, created a unique fire problem. As one of the nation's foremost conflagration experts puts it, "No one has ever faced this problem before." No definite line of defense could be established, and when a chain reaction of this type occurs, a fire department can do nothing more than pick out individual houses and try to save them.

Even in attempts to save individual homes, firemen are further thwarted by the loss of water. How can a modern water system, properly designed to meet emergency fire conditions, fail to function? To understand this, let's look at a simplified diagram of houses on a hill being supplied by a water tank above.

When thousands of outlets are opened below the hill, water pressure is lost in the overtaxed system, regardless of the amount of water available above the houses. When the water supply comes from a distant location and supply pipes dead-end on the hill, unnecessary use of too many outlets below the fire area simply drains the water out of the upper system.

Same story. An urban water infrastructure can't be asked to put out wildfires. Wildfires are contained by bulldozing firebreaks, setting backfires and air drops of water and fire retardants. Not with fire hoses. These neighborhoods have been built in wildfire country, so this is what happens.


24:25

In 1959, experts from the National Fire Protection Association surveyed portions of Los Angeles. They found a mountain range within the city, with combustible-roofed houses closely spaced in brush-covered canyons and ridges, serviced by narrow roads. They described it as "a design for disaster" and predicted a major fire, such as the Bel Aire Fire, plus others that were sure to come unless citizens and city officials worked together on a definite plan of fire defense.

The prediction was nothing new to firemen. They had their own concerns about people who opposed water pumping stations or fire stations in their neighborhoods, deeming them unsightly. Similarly, they encountered homeowners who refused to cut brush away from their homes because it spoiled the natural beauty of the hills. There were also groups who, despite overwhelming evidence, insisted to the last glowing ember that combustible roofs were not hazardous in fire-prone areas—this, even though over 600 cities had already outlawed them.

NIMBY is nothing new.

The one thing that's changed is that shake and shingle roofs have been made illegal.

The Bel AIre fire was not as long lasting and widespread as the current fires because the Santa Ana wind storm was less severe and only lasted half a day. There was no hope of stopping the Bel AIre Fire while the wind was blowing. There was no reasonable hope of stopping these recent fires during this wind storm. No infrastructure could be built to change that, no matter how much money was spent. That's the reality.

This was a really bad wind storm, so this was a really bad fire.

The only real difference is that many more neighborhoods have been built in the hills since 1961. They can only be described as temporary.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I asked GPT to give me this list of similar fires.

1. Oakland Hills Fire (California, 1991)
Description: Also known as the "Tunnel Fire," this fire burned over 1,500 acres, destroying more than 2,800 homes and killing 25 people. The fire spread rapidly due to strong winds and highly flammable vegetation in the urban-wildland interface.
Key Similarities: Urban-wildland interface, high winds, and combustible structures.

2. Malibu Fire (California, 1993)
Description: Multiple fires ignited during a Santa Ana wind event, including the Old Topanga Fire, which destroyed hundreds of homes in Malibu.
Key Similarities: Narrow roads, Santa Ana winds, and homes with combustible roofs.

3. Cedar Fire (San Diego County, California, 2003)
Description: The Cedar Fire burned over 280,000 acres, making it one of the largest fires in California history. More than 2,800 buildings were destroyed, and 15 lives were lost.
Key Similarities: Rapid spread, urban-wildland interface, and dry, windy conditions.

4. Woolsey Fire (California, 2018)
Description: This fire burned nearly 100,000 acres, destroying over 1,600 structures and causing significant damage in Malibu and surrounding areas.
Key Similarities: Santa Ana winds, narrow escape routes, and homes in brush-covered canyons.

5. Griffith Park Fire (Los Angeles, 1933)
Description: This earlier fire in Los Angeles occurred in Griffith Park, burning 47 acres and killing 29 workers trying to control the flames.
Key Similarities: Proximity to urban areas and the rapid spread of fire in dry conditions.

6. Thomas Fire (Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, California, 2017)
Description: The Thomas Fire burned over 280,000 acres, destroying over 1,000 structures. It was fueled by Santa Ana winds and dry vegetation.
Key Similarities: Fast-moving flames, urban-wildland challenges, and wind-driven behavior.

7. Laguna Beach Fire (California, 1993)
Description: This fire destroyed over 400 homes in a single day due to fierce Santa Ana winds and dense vegetation.
Key Similarities: Narrow roads, urban-wildland interface, and rapid evacuation challenges.

8. Camp Fire (Paradise, California, 2018)
Description: The Camp Fire was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history, killing 85 people and destroying nearly 19,000 structures.
Key Similarities: Urban-wildland interface, flammable building materials, and extreme wind-driven spread.

These fires illustrate the persistent challenges in fire-prone urban-wildland interfaces, especially when strong winds, flammable materials, and dry vegetation align.

...fire-prone urban-wildland interfaces...


A persistent misperception people in other parts of the country get is that all of the Los Angeles area, or all of California burns and floods. The reality: The fires and floods happen in The Hills.

Most of us in Los Angeles, Orange County, Ventura County - the ones who live in the flatlands (about 97% percent) - watch these things on TV, just like people in Kankakee or Omaha City do.

I expect that these burned neighborhoods will be rebuilt, and even more new neighborhoods will be built. And so it goes.

 

[Leifer]

Here's a video on the use of ocean saltwater on coastal land fires.
Note, that ocean water WAS partially used to help battle these fires, with water-dropping aircraft.
Also mentioned in this video is the fact that as homes burn and collapse, their water pipes burst, leaving open flowing water.... reducing system pressure overall. (Unless the water is shut off before evacuating).


Source: https://youtu.be/Y1N2BwcAT-s?si=wWTsrTnsBpN4lbQu

 

[Minus0]

In addition:

Relative humidity is important because dead forest fuels and the air are always exchanging moisture. Low humidity takes moisture from the fuels, and fuels in turn, take moisture from the air when the humidity is high. Light fuels, such as grass and pine needles, gain and lose moisture quickly with changes in relative humidity. When the RH drops, fire behavior increases because these fine fuels become drier.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/understanding-fire-danger.htm

 

[RTM]

I asked GPT to give me this list of similar fires.




...fire-prone urban-wildland interfaces...


A persistent misperception people in other parts of the country get is that all of the Los Angeles area, or all of California burns and floods. The reality: The fires and floods happen in The Hills.

Most of us in Los Angeles, Orange County, Ventura County - the ones who live in the flatlands (about 97% percent) - watch these things on TV, just like people in Kankakee or Omaha City do.

I expect that these burned neighborhoods will be rebuilt, and even more new neighborhoods will be built. And so it goes.

What effects do the small canyons/valleys etc. have? Anecdote alert: I was told that during the Tubbs fire, that impacted Napa and Sonoma, the wind was funneled down one of the valleys toward Santa Rosa which resulted in a large amount of embers being blown toward the town.

 

[Minus0]

What effects do the small canyons/valleys etc. have? Anecdote alert: I was told that during the Tubbs fire, that impacted Napa and Sonoma, the wind was funneled down one of the valleys toward Santa Rosa which resulted in a large amount of embers being blown toward the town.

It is certainly the case that in high winds the fire spreads quickly via airborne embers. In the situation you referenced, it seems probable you were referring to Venturi valley winds. As a large air mass is forced forced through a valley bottom the airspeed increases relative to the compression. It would carry embers further while also fanning the flames.

In the case of the LA County fires, they primarily seemed to have started on the lee side of the hills which is interesting. Wind speeds on the lee are typically less strong but more turbulent. It's the same fluid dynamics as water: water speed increases when it's forced through a narrows then as the river opens wider the speed slows and back eddy's are formed.

While the turbulence in the lee would certainly make the fire less predictable, I wouldn't expect it to be an exacerbatory factor in itself. Strong consistent winds in one direction will spread the fire more steadily.

However, I came across this article and the graph presented suggests there was a lee side wind dynamic called Mountain Waves that actually increased downslope winds dramatically.

https://www.dailybulletin.com/2025/01/10/here-is-the-wind-forecast-for-jan-10-to-jan-15/

It doesn't make sense to me and I suspect whoever created the graph got the fluid dynamics wrong or there's some missing pressure gradient above the lee side airmass (which I doubt given the lack of weather fronts?). Does anyone else know if this is a valid contributing factor?

Based on my understandings, the wind speed would have been fastest along the ridge lines in the maximum compression zone, then speeds would've fallen off and become more turbulent in the lee. Like this:

Regardless, wind gusts were reported over 100 miles an hour, so the wind speeds would've been extreme under any lee side dynamics.

*Edit: apparently it's a real phenomenon?

What are mountain waves?

Mountain waves are oscillations in airflow that can happen when the wind blows across a mountain or hill. You can think of them as the air equivalent of water flowing over a rock in a stream—but they're much more complex because their existence, size and intensity are sensitive to the how the temperature and wind vary with height. They often lead to strong winds on the lee slope (the side that's sheltered from the wind) of the mountain or hill. This is known as 'downslope' wind.

Image: Near-surface air flow of a mountain wave.

https://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1311/research-how-mountain-waves-can-escalate-bushfires/

It still makes no sense to me though. I need one of the people here with a big brain to parse that excerpt; it seems directly contradictory.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Isn't it largely because the air is falling? Gravity, in other words.

Doesn't water accelerate on the downslope? Why not air? They're both fluids.

 

[Ann K]

It still makes no sense to me though. I need one of the people here with a big brain to parse that excerpt; it seems directly contradictory.

Will you settle for a not-so-big brain? It makes sense to me when there is not a fire going. Even here with a small slope in my back yard, there's a cool draft of air that spills down the slope in the evenings. But hot air rises, so I too am baffled by that diagram when there is a fire, unless it flows downhill only to the point where its velocity is stopped by the counterbalancing of of an updraft due to the fire.

 

[Minus0]

Isn't it largely because the air is falling? Gravity, in other words.

Doesn't water accelerate on the downslope? Why not air? They're both fluids.

My understanding is the atmospheric layers of air are thick and relatively stable on the horizontal plain (without weather fronts)

I would assume the lowest layer of the air mass has the highest speed fluctuations given terrain obstacles, but the speed is relative to the amount of compression it is undergoing from the upper stable layers dragging it along, while also pushing down on terrain. I don't believe the entire air column would sink down after a mountain in the manner that would be required for the water analogy. Water going down a hill is replaced by the air around it. If an air mass falls down the hill with gravity, there would be a vacuum created at the bottom of the next layer. This is why turbulence happens on the lee side of hills.

Even if the perturbations from the hill persist higher up in the air column the overall thickness of the air mass doesn't change. However, perhaps this dynamic is different with the proximity to the ocean and related changes in temperature and humidity. Perhaps there's an air mass up top pushing down and some sort of inversion or sheer layer that creates the dynamic.

Incidentally, a friend of mine who is a high altitude helicopter pilot in the Canadian Rockies has talked about using the lee side rotor to climb the mountains more efficiently in high wind conditions. He has to get much closer in to the terrain but once he does, there are strong reliable updrafts. When staying further away and climbing, it can be much slower given the air mass is descending.

(apologies for the potato quality).

That's how I've always understood the wind dynamics over mountains. But there must be other variables in this situation causing the effect.

 

[Minus0]

Will you settle for a not-so-big brain? It makes sense to me when there is not a fire going. Even here with a small slope in my back yard, there's a cool draft of air that spills down the slope in the evenings. But hot air rises, so I too am baffled by that diagram when there is a fire, unless it flows downhill only to the point where its velocity is stopped by the counterbalancing of of an updraft due to the fire.

That cool breeze at night is called katabatic wind and is produced specifically in the evenings once the sun's energy has stopped heating the ground. The thick cold air descends from higher elevation along the surface forcing the warmer air from the valley bottom rises up.

I'm fairly certain that's not what they're referring to here since it's not related to lee side wind dynamics.

 

[FatPhil]

View attachment 75737
(apologies for the potato quality).

That's how I've always understood the wind dynamics over mountains. But there must be other variables in this situation causing the effect.

I agree that that flow makes sense if turbulence has kicked in, but hypothetically if turbulence hasn't kicked in, then in order to not detach layers, the wind following the valley surface would have to travel further, and therefore faster. You'd expect air pressure measurements to be lower on the leeward side were this true. The low amount of turbulence should also be detectable in windsocks etc. DIsclaimer: I fully accept that aerodynamics is a black art well above my paygrade, but at least this is a disprovable hypothesis.

 

[psikiwi]

Very anecdotal, and hazy memories. My father's cousin worked for the Water Board in Victoria, Australia, and was based in Badger Creek, Healesville, outside Melbourne. I recall visiting him in early 1998, and spending a day in the hills, as he drove us through parts the catchment area and reservoirs, along the fire-breaks and access roads up to the Fire Watch towers. It was a nominally controlled area, i.e. certain adventure/out-door activities were restricted, seasonal or only allowed in particular parts (think motor-bikes, fishing, boating, camping etc)

He talked about the management of the areas, including back-burns, fire-breaks, and the impact of a fire on the whole system. He stated the speed of fires depends on the gradient of the slope, and if I recall somewhat correctly, fire moves fastest up-hill and doubles speed over the ground for every 10 degree increase of incline. What I can't remember is the average fire speed on flat ground. [I don't have a citation, or the time to go looking, sorry.] Equally, if there is no external driving winds, the fire descends a hill more slowly the steeper it is...

Obviously, this does not take into account other factors like the local climatic/wind conditions, which appear to have such a huge role in the current LA conflagrations. I need to go do some more digging, to refresh my own understanding of the general principles.

 

[Stryder]

Disclaimer to start: I am not a fire scientist, just an engineer that has lived in high fire areas almost my entire life. While fire seems mysterious at first (and to be fair, it can do some extraordinary and unexpected things at times), applying basic engineering/scientific principles explains most observed fire behavior.

He stated the speed of fires depends on the gradient of the slope, and if I recall somewhat correctly, fire moves fastest up-hill and doubles speed over the ground for every 10 degree increase of incline.

To clearly understand why this is so, we first have to understand that fire spreads through several different mechanisms. The main 3 mechanisms are 1) direct flame contact; 2) heating flammable materials to above their ignition temperatures; and 3) ember spread. Combine this with basic methods of energy transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation and we can quickly determine why fire moves uphill so much faster than downhill.

Radiation is intense when you are very close to the fire, but dissipates rapidly with distance. Radiation goes in all directions and thus does not favor uphill or downhill directions. Likewise conduction transfers heat to adjacent areas, but is also diminished with distance except in cases where there is an efficient conductor (think a metal bar with one end in the fire, the end not in the fire gets hot quicker than if it were made of ceramic). The big driver of fire uphill is convection. As fire heats the air, the air becomes lighter and rises carrying much of the heat with it. Besides just transferring heat, convection also funnels the flames upwards (the air current pushes/pulls the flame). So even on an otherwise calm day, a fire makes rising air currents. These can be extreme in cases. A good percentage of the total heat output of the fire rises and between direct flame contact and just heat transfer, materials upslope get heated and ignited quickly. Conversely, materials downslope have the benefit of the heat being pulled away from them.

As I noted, convection can be extreme and with enough heat it can make its own weather. It creates a localized low pressure zone due to the heating of the air (similar to how a very hot day can create a low pressure area over a wider area). As the fire grows, the updraft draws heavier, cooler air into all sides of the fire (on a calm day) which is in turn heated and rises, etc. etc. Eventually, with enough fuel and the proper moisture conditions, this can result in a pyro-nimbus cloud, complete with thunder and lightning.

Source: Wikipedia

I had the "opportunity" to witness such a cloud form close to my home a few years back. It is impressive and very scary to see how fast such a cloud can form. They can rise many thousands of feet into the atmosphere.

I haven't seen it yet (I'm sure its out there), but we will soon see the space laser theory expounded to explain why in some neighborhoods only the houses were burnt, leaving abundant fuel in the form of unburnt trees and shrubs behind. Surely this could only be caused by a directed energy beam of some sort, right? WRONG! I've seen in another thread somewhere on Metabunk many of these pictures and they can be found from nearly every major fire. A devastated neighborhood surrounded by green trees. It is the norm, not the exception. Yes, the contrast between the burned out neighborhood and the green vegetation is stark, but it is common. A neighborhood, once ignited is an urban fire, not a wildfire. The houses and automobiles provide copious fuel to fuel an unstoppable conflagration. The trees around the fire may or may not burn. They tend to be less flammable than the houses.

Actual fire experts have been saying for decades that the principle factor in wildfire spread is wind driven embers. These embers can spread in advance of the main fire up to several miles. They alight on the ground, on trees, on houses downwind and begin to ignite whatever they land on. Once they ignite a tree or a house, that site becomes a new source of embers to continue the spread downwind. This simultaneously explains why some areas are skipped by big fires and also why trying to create a firebreak in high winds is pretty much useless.

Unfortunately, this also makes it pretty obvious that "thinning" the forests is not the panacea that many politicians are claiming. If you look at the current fires in LA County, you'll note that they are not in "forested areas" of many big trees. Although, Southern California is home to many National Forests and State Forests, they are not typically the forests that many people envision. I grew up and lived in LA County a good portion of my life. The "natural" hillsides are covered in chaparral, a mix of shrubs such as manzanita and sagebrush, and small oaks. This chaparral can start as very low growing vegetation, but after 20-30 years of growth creates a nearly impenetrable wall of scrub that can easily be 20 feet tall or more. It clings to hillsides and steep terrain. Thinning this is a non-starter. You can clear it or you can ignore it. Typically in Sothern California, it is left alone, except when it is near developments. If you clear it, then what? Either it grows back, or it is replaced with grasses. Grasses which burn very rapidly in a dry windy environment.

I personally lived on a steep slope to the east of Los Angeles that was covered in chaparral. I remember the day shortly after we moved in, the local fire department stopped by for a training exercise not knowing that the house we were living in was again occupied. After we mutually understood the situation, we had a conversation that really stuck with me. The fire chief stated that if a fire occurred in the immediate area, our house would be unsavable in its current situation. If we wanted to have any hope of saving the house when the fire came (Not IF), we had to do some serious work. For the next 2-3 years my wife and I spent a considerable amount of our free time hardening the area around our home. We completed eliminated the Chaparral near the house (100 feet), planted low growing, low fuel plants on the step embankments leading up to our house, poured concrete in areas under wooden decks, and removed other combustibles from near the house. (These are the some of the same things being recommended in California for the past decade). We ignored the chaparral more than 100 feet from the house (we had a 10 acre lot, so we could have gone a lot further). Any further than 100' was an area we couldn't realistically maintain to keep things like grass from growing.

A word on Santa Ana winds and fire. Wow!!!! If you haven't personally experienced Santa Ana winds, you don't know what you are missing. The LA basin is possibly best know for its smog. Even before Europeans settled in the area, it was known among natives as the "valley of the smokes" because it collected smoke from the native's fires and natural fires and combined it with fog from the coast to form smog. When the Santa Ana's blow, the smog disappears. From our house on the hillside we could see the ocean, even large ships on the ocean (at least 40 miles). The winds typically occur in the late fall to early spring, and they bring much warmer temperatures than normal. They are one of the reasons the Rose Parade has such awesome weather most years. BUT, they can blow hard. They are extremely dry. They raise the temperature a lot (about 5 degrees F for every 1000' they drop). 100mph winds are not uncommon on exposed slopes and they can go on for days. Imagine having hurricane force winds for days. We had a concrete block wall with pillars surrounding our house. On top of these pillars were concrete capstones about 24" by 24" and 3 inches thick. They probably weighed in at about 60 lbs apiece. After a bad Santa Ana, I would inevitably have to search for one or two of them that blew off and was carried by the wind and gravity a few hundred feet away. (Yes they were mortared onto the columns).

The fire eventually happened (2002 if I remember correctly). It started well east of us in the foothills at approximately the same elevation as our house. It was a slow moving fire (in Southern California terms), burning in the heavy Chaparral, interspersed with occasional groves of eucalyptus trees. The fire slowly burned its way westwards towards our house. Each time it encountered a group of eucalyptus trees, it seemed to explode. The fire crews were gradually getting containment and we breathed easier. In total it advanced about 3 miles over the course of 3 to 4 days to within maybe 1 mile of our neighborhood. Close, but not immediately a danger. Then the Santa Ana's started. In one night, the fire burned that last mile to our neighborhood and 45 miles beyond it. It engulfed the foothills. The fire crews which had been prepositioned when the fire was moving slowly and assigned to protect individual houses in the neighborhood fled to save their lives. No amount of further preparation by the fire departments would have made one bit of difference. Most of the houses in the neighborhood were complete losses. The houses were not close together in most cases, with the exception of our immediate neighbor who was just a few feet west and above us. Our neighbor had done quite a bit of work to clear chaparral around their house as well, but really benefitted from the work we had done, since the fire had to go past our place to get to theirs. Unfortunately, they had left a lawnmower out next to the house which ignited from embers and caused some significant damage to their house. Of all the houses in the neighborhood, ours was the only one unscathed by the fire. We had to replace some irrigation lines for the embankment plants and clean up soot and ash. That was it. Like our immediate neighbor, most of the houses that owners had invested in hardening survived with damage. The houses that hadn't been hardened were just gone. To be clear, the houses that burned were not wooden sided, shake roof houses. They were all built in the era were it was understood that fire might be a problem. In some cases, they were just in indefensible locations or defensible space was not maintained.

A couple of lessons I learned.
1) Clearing around a structure is critical. It doesn't have to be bare earth.
2) Clearing personal property is just as important as brush.
3) Beyond about 100' the radiant heat isn't present long enough to ignite a semi-hardened house (at least in chaparral).
4) Embers are unstoppable even with good fire lines and prepositioned crews and equipment when the wind blows.
5) The local geography makes a difference.
6) Not being in a dense neighborhood can be a good thing. (learned from reading about other fires that ripped through neighborhoods where a single home owner can't do enough to protect from all the surrounding houses burning).

Sorry. Really long post. I'm just in the process of further hardening my current house in light of increased fire threat and had a lot on my mind.

 

[Stryder]

I agree that that flow makes sense if turbulence has kicked in, but hypothetically if turbulence hasn't kicked in, then in order to not detach layers, the wind following the valley surface would have to travel further, and therefore faster. You'd expect air pressure measurements to be lower on the leeward side were this true. The low amount of turbulence should also be detectable in windsocks etc. DIsclaimer: I fully accept that aerodynamics is a black art well above my paygrade, but at least this is a disprovable hypothesis.

That's exactly what happens with laminar flow. Just like an airplane wing. The hill acts like the upper surface of an airplane wing (which is longer than the lower surface), increasing the speed of the air. Unlike a wing, there is no lower flow to combine with and reduce the speed on the other side. Surface friction will gradually slow the faster moving air, so the distance beyond the hill with higher airspeed is limited. As pointed out, once this breaks into turbulent flow, it reverts to the situation with lower speed eddies.

 

[jdog]

Unfortunately, this also makes it pretty obvious that "thinning" the forests is not the panacea that many politicians are claiming. If you look at the current fires in LA County, you'll note that they are not in "forested areas" of many big trees. Although, Southern California is home to many National Forests and State Forests, they are not typically the forests that many people envision. I grew up and lived in LA County a good portion of my life. The "natural" hillsides are covered in chaparral, a mix of shrubs such as manzanita and sagebrush, and small oaks. This chaparral can start as very low growing vegetation, but after 20-30 years of growth creates a nearly impenetrable wall of scrub that can easily be 20 feet tall or more. It clings to hillsides and steep terrain. Thinning this is a non-starter. You can clear it or you can ignore it. Typically in Sothern California, it is left alone, except when it is near developments. If you clear it, then what? Either it grows back, or it is replaced with grasses. Grasses which burn very rapidly in a dry windy environment.
...
I personally lived on a steep slope to the east of Los Angeles that was covered in chaparral.
...
A word on Santa Ana winds and fire. Wow!!!! If you haven't personally experienced Santa Ana winds, you don't know what you are missing. ..

As a near lifelong Southern Californian, I agree that many people opining on wildfire management are utterly unfamiliar with the rolling scrub terrain that covers most of the region -- as well as our climate. There's no "forest" to thin by logging (which some people imagine as a solution), except in some narrow stretches of the inland mountains. We live near a canyon that's a fire hazard -- as our insurance premiums increasingly reflect -- but the HOA does a good job of keeping brush away from the perimeter.

One of the local meteorologists pointed out that we've had less .5 inches of rain in San Diego region since March 2024 and we've dropped back into "severe drought" conditions. Downtown LA has about about .29 inches of rain since May.

 

[Ann K]

@Stryder , stay safe, and thanks for the info. I just went out for errands for the first time in more than a week, the car slid on the slush three times, and nearly got stuck on two occasions ...but after reading all the work you've had to do to keep the house from burning, I'll count myself lucky!

 

[qed]

Given that this problem won't improve naturally, what is the (long term) scientific solution to the California (and other) wildfires?

 

[jdog]

Given that this problem won't improve naturally, what is the (long term) scientific solution to the California (and other) wildfires?

Well, if you're a systems wonk, the policy approach is some form of Plan Integration Resilience: https://planning.calpoly.edu/crp-faculty-research-design-innovative-wildfire-mitigation-solution.

Which is basically requiring identifying the particular threats in each region (rather than mandating a generic solution, like "controlled burns" or "more water tankers") and having each area develop a comprehensive approach toward fire prevention, fighting and mitigation along the wildland-urban interface.

Which may mean establishing and enforcing policies such as banning shrubbery near homes in certain neighborhoods, funding roof upgrades, adding (more) neighborhood fire safety measures to housing approvals, etc. (If people thought housing was expensive before, imagine what new construction will be like under a new wildfire regime, with tariffs on imported goods and a shortage of immigrant construction workers.) But what politicians like to point to is air tankers, fire trucks, and whatever unrelated policy they wanted to add or remove in the first place.

It takes some measure of state-level action to overcome local and regional resistance, but California is facing a severe housing shortage and an insurance crisis and if the state can't persuade insurers to come back it will have to deal with the cost of providing last-resort insurance. California lawmakers are also staring down the barrel of the 2026 elections and the pressure to do something while the legislative analysts's office said even before the disaster that the state budget has no leeway for new commitments.

 

[NorCal Dave]

A couple of lessons I learned.
1) Clearing around a structure is critical. It doesn't have to be bare earth.
2) Clearing personal property is just as important as brush.
3) Beyond about 100' the radiant heat isn't present long enough to ignite a semi-hardened house (at least in chaparral).
4) Embers are unstoppable even with good fire lines and prepositioned crews and equipment when the wind blows.
5) The local geography makes a difference.
6) Not being in a dense neighborhood can be a good thing. (learned from reading about other fires that ripped through neighborhoods where a single home owner can't do enough to protect from all the surrounding houses burning).

Absolutely! I'm just outside Paradise and had just finished our new home when the '18 Camp Fire hit. Our particular neighborhood had been hit by the Humbolt Fire in '08, so I knew better. I didn't so much go for "defensible space" as "survivable space". Defensible assumes someone is going to show up and defend.

Fully cleared and hard scaped 50'-75' out from the house. Then a combination of grasses, mowed often until they dry out in summer, and managed chaparral. Some manzanita, buckthorn, oaks, toyon and such, but thinned into smaller islands so there is habitat for the critters but not walls of fuel. A scattering of Digger pines (I know, we're supposed to call them Grey pines now, but nobody knows what that is) but all are trimmed 10' up minimum and the closest is 60' from the house.

The house, while it is wood framed construction, has NO combustible materials on the exterior. Metal roof, eves are boxed in with cement board, exterior is covered in old school 3 coat stucco (~1" thick) with metal siding for accents. Gutters are covered to prevent build up in them. All venting is fire rated to prevent embers entering the attic, one of the most common sources of homes burning in wildfire events.

Of the 13 homes on our road, 3 burned including 2 of my direct neighbors. Our place was unscathed, aside from rotted food in the refrigerator after 10 days of evacuation and no power.

We just sent photos today to an insurance agent. If we look good, an inspector will come out and hopefully certify us as IHSB (might have that term wrong), or basically about as fire safe as a place can be. If that happens, Mercury insurance is looking at writing NEW policies in this area for people that qualify. NEW policies! Right now, we still have Farmer's but is quadruple what it was when we built and many of my neighbors only have the FAIR plan available at whatever it costs.

 

[Stryder]

I didn't so much go for "defensible space" as "survivable space". Defensible assumes someone is going to show up and defend.

Good point. In my case in Southern California, I was lucky to have had support during the early stages of the fire, but when it got extreme the fire crews had to bail. I suspect that they still helped by spraying down my decks just before they left. In the recent LA County fires, it was too sudden, too extreme and too widespread for any realistic hope of professional assistance. A few people got it, but most did not.

When we moved to southwest Oregon, shortly after surviving the fire in California, we built a new house with a lot of the lessons learned. We did not go the stucco route because we were informed that due to the wetness of the Oregon climate it wouldn't do well. In hindsight, I call BS on that. We used cement siding, trim and eave boards.

I just read a good paper, published in the 90s I think, that spoke about the most important preparation for fire had to be done by individual homeowners. It also published some data on how much space you had to have to prevent combustion from radiant heat. It turns out, that the space needed in extreme cases was no more than 40 meters and possibly as little as 10 meters even if you had wood siding. The far greater hazard pointed out was embers and firebrands blowing in and igniting the structure or other things around the house. I'm still working on the 40 meters just in case.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Well, if you're a systems wonk, the policy approach is some form of Plan Integration Resilience: https://planning.calpoly.edu/crp-faculty-research-design-innovative-wildfire-mitigation-solution.

Which is basically requiring identifying the particular threats in each region (rather than mandating a generic solution, like "controlled burns" or "more water tankers") and having each area develop a comprehensive approach toward fire prevention, fighting and mitigation along the wildland-urban interface.

Which may mean establishing and enforcing policies such as banning shrubbery near homes in certain neighborhoods, funding roof upgrades, adding (more) neighborhood fire safety measures to housing approvals, etc. (If people thought housing was expensive before, imagine what new construction will be like under a new wildfire regime, with tariffs on imported goods and a shortage of immigrant construction workers.) But what politicians like to point to is air tankers, fire trucks, and whatever unrelated policy they wanted to add or remove in the first place.

It takes some measure of state-level action to overcome local and regional resistance, but California is facing a severe housing shortage and an insurance crisis and if the state can't persuade insurers to come back it will have to deal with the cost of providing last-resort insurance. California lawmakers are also staring down the barrel of the 2026 elections and the pressure to do something while the legislative analysts's office said even before the disaster that the state budget has no leeway for new commitments.

Just my own speculation and thoughts as a contractor.

Assorted mandates and government fees have already driven up building prices, regardless of labor and material costs.

In my rather lower cost county, we were required to come up with ~$27K in fees and permits, before ever starting construction back in 2017. That includes county impact fees though I already lived in the county and was building on a private road, permit and inspection fees, local school district fees and the local park district fees. In some areas there are a number of additional fees related to streets, street lighting and nearby infrastructure. These are all in addition to the annual property tax a homeowner will pay once the house is complete.

As for mandates, often included in the building code, compared to just say the year 2000, all new homes will have fire sprinkler systems (probably not very useful in a wildfire), some solar panels, a pre-build energy audit (often referred to as Title 24 energy calcs) that will determine what kind of HVAC and other systems can be used, ARC fault circuit breakers, and if one is in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI, pronounced Woo E) some more mandates, like fire proof vents. On top of that, many of the formally common structural standards have been updated, like the size of footings for a standard home.

I'm not saying any of these updates are bad, just that they add to the cost of a house.

Around here fire sprinklers are a separate permit and are installed by a specialized contractor. Rebuilding my neighbor's house in 2020, they were around $6k IIRC. But that assumes your city water hook up can supply the needed pressure for the system. As we're on wells around here, the sprinkler system can require major updates with holding tanks and pressure pumps above and beyond the upfront cost.

Energy calcs aren't expansive, around $500-$1000, but they can dictate what HVAC, insulation, water heater and other systems one can use, often leaning towards the more expensive options.

Even something simple like the now mandated ARC fault circuit breakers is another small add on in a list of add ons. A normal 20 amp breaker is around $7 while a comparable ARC one is around $55.

The average house has around 20-30 breakers, with the majority being ARC fault. No, $140 compared to $1100 isn't a huge difference when buying an entire house, but all these little mandates add up.

I helped a contractor buddy pour a foundation for an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU description below) in Chico CA. This was a 750 sq' single story 1 bed, 1 bath unit. In the not too distant past a standard footing, the perimeter concrete base set into the ground that the walls of the home sit on, for a 1-2 story home in this area was a 12" wide x 12" deep with a concrete slab floor ~4" thick. This little ADU had footings that were 18" x 18" with an additional 24" x 18" footing down the middle plus a full 6" slab. For a 750 sq' little home we had 3 full concrete trucks deliver 27 sq yards of concrete! It felt like we were pouring a parking garage. And concrete was running around $140+ a yard, so nearly $4k just for the concrete on a 750sq' ADU.

It all adds up.

Just my opinion, but I think the push by the state to mandate every jurisdiction add ever more housing in more density and people living in wildfire, flood and earthquake prone areas are at odds. Anecdotally, more homes survived around here in the Camp Fire, that were in lower density areas. One of my neighbors poorly maintained tinder box didn't affect my place, because there was enough distance between us for me to protect my place from her poor choices.

So, going forward does the state stop places like Pacific Palisades from rebuilding as it's a wildfire area? Do all those people move int the already crowed LA basin or Bay Area? Places literally built on the San Andreas fault. Do we try to rebuild, but with better construction and rules like mentioned about landscaping around the house? In ours's and other cases the insurance companies may force implementation of some of these things. As I noted above, one company is looking at writing new policies in our area IF the home meets some serious qualifications related to fire prevention.

Just some thoughts.

ADUs are basically small houses built on existing lots with existing homes. What many people would know as a "Granny Flat" or "Mother in-law suite", a small self-contained home built in the back yard or on the ally. In many places, if one follows the rules about size and location, the city/county can't say no to these, and some places encourage them as additional housing. Often the city may have pre-approved plans and a streamlined permitting process, as well as discounted fees for ADUs.

 

[psikiwi]

To clearly understand why this is so, we first have to understand that fire spreads through several different mechanisms. The main 3 mechanisms are 1) direct flame contact; 2) heating flammable materials to above their ignition temperatures; and 3) ember spread. Combine this with basic methods of energy transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation and we can quickly determine why fire moves uphill so much faster than downhill.

Thanks, Stryder, for the full and informative post. There are a lot of factors you mention that i was aware of, and had explained to me, but I didn't want to write purely from memory of conversations, and you covered them clearly, better than i could have. Interesting you mention the eucalypts, as that is the predominant species in the Australian forests, and they are capable of burning even when green, if the heat is there.

Your post hits harder and is more relevant, coming from your lived experience.

 

[psikiwi]

Given that this problem won't improve naturally, what is the (long term) scientific solution to the California (and other) wildfires?

Does it need to be scientific, as such? I think Styrder hits it pretty squarely here: (a citation would be nice, if available)

I just read a good paper, published in the 90s I think, that spoke about the most important preparation for fire had to be done by individual homeowners. It also published some data on how much space you had to have to prevent combustion from radiant heat. It turns out, that the space needed in extreme cases was no more than 40 meters and possibly as little as 10 meters even if you had wood siding. The far greater hazard pointed out was embers and firebrands blowing in and igniting the structure or other things around the house. I'm still working on the 40 meters just in case.

In my head, personal responsibility and accountability has a large role to play, and Stryder's earlier post shows the benefit of foresight. For people choosing to buy/live in areas with very known hazards like this (or flooding), preparation prior to the event is key. But that is too much like actual hard work for many... and it is easier to expect the onus should be on beauracracy to fix it, but don't raise our taxes!

 

[Mendel]

Given that this problem won't improve naturally, what is the (long term) scientific solution to the California (and other) wildfires?

My knee-jerk response thought to this was, "don't live in California".
And today, I read this and think it solves another problem, too:

California is facing a severe housing shortage and an insurance crisis

 

[Ann K]

My knee-jerk response thought to this was, "don't live in California".
And today, I read this and think it solves another problem, too:

John McPhee's book, The Control of Nature, begins with a hair-raising tale of a California couple riding down an avalanche on their bed. He found that avalanches of that sort occur every six years, if I recall, and when he went around the neighborhood and asked homeowners how long they'd been there, the answers were "two years", "three years", etc. (I can't find the book now, so those are not direct quotes, just my recollection.) It sounds as if short memories play a part in the decision to live in danger zones, and an ignorance of local history. But they're considered by many to be an ideal paradise of a place to live ...until they're not.

 

[JMartJr]

It sounds as if short memories play a part in the decision to live in danger zones, and an ignorance of local history. But they're considered by many to be an ideal paradise of a place to live ...until they're not.

In fairness, the "living someplace dangerous because I like it here otherwise" thing is of course not limited to California. People live in lovely warm beach communities that will, over time, get wiped out by hurricanes. People live next to massive volcanoes, from Naples (next to Pompeii!) to the Pacific NW. People live downstream from dams, people live in valleys where avalanches can and do happen. People live in "tornado alley" and in regions where wars break out with some frequency and in cities where crime is high. Etc. Heck, I have a lot of trees in my yard, and even after having a great big honking one fall this year and just miss the house, I continue to live here, and have not had all the trees taken down.

I'd be curious if the "short timer" thing is prevalent in those sorts of places -- if so, I'd guess it would be more noteable the more frequent the disaster (volcanic eruptions that happen every several centuries vs. devastating hurricanes that hit a community every several decades vs.fires that might sweep through several times in a decade, maybe...

 

[Stryder]

Does it need to be scientific, as such? I think Styrder hits it pretty squarely here: (a citation would be nice, if available)

I'm not great at providing citations. I'll work on it. The original paper was written by Jack D. Cohen, Ph.D. Research Physical Scientist, Rocky Mountain Research Station. (USFS PSW-GTR-173 (1999)).

I found this paper while combing the internet for approaches to wildfire defense that I wasn't personally familiar with and came across it at the site: https://californiachaparral.org/fire/protecting-your-home/ They have a nice paper at: https://rest.edit.site/filestorage-...f4c4b90/from-the-house-outward-v4(3).pdf?dl=1 which provides a link to the paper I referenced at: https://rest.edit.site/filestorage-...de776b0f38536c/cohen-key-points-1999.pdf?dl=1 This link provides some bullet point summary and then provides the paper (probably just the summary). I found interesting information all along this path.

Mods: If I need to do this differently in the future, let me know. I didn't want to just paste the paper as I'm not sure if there are any copyright issues.

Edited to add key quote from the paper:

SIAM modeling, crown fire experiments, and WUI fire case studies show that effective fuel modification for reducing potential WUI fire losses need only occur within a few tens of meters from a home, not hundreds of meters or more from a home. This research indicates that home losses can be effectively reduced by focusing mitigation efforts on the structure and its immediate surroundings. Those characteristics of a structure's materials and design and the surrounding flammables that determine the potential for a home to ignite during wildland fires(or any fires outside the home) will, hereafter, be referred to as home ignitability.
The evidence suggests that wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel reduction for several hundred meters or more around homes is greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames. Ineffective because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand ignitions. To be effective, given no modification of home ignition characteristics, wildland vegetation management would have to significantly reduce firebrand production and potentially extend for several kilometers away from homes.

 

[Stryder]

It sounds as if short memories play a part in the decision to live in danger zones, and an ignorance of local history.

Having lived in (as I suspect most of us have) many "dangerous" areas, I think it is more of a rationalization process. I grew up in an area with a known dangers (LA Basin) and just assumed that it is okay and I didn't need to worry about it. We joked about shake, bake, and slide being the seasons in Southern California, but did little to deal with it on a personal level. Then when I moved back to the area and purchased real estate in a high risk area, it took a talk with the fire chief for me to recognize that the danger was real and there were steps I could take to mitigate the risks. Still, until you have seen it up close, its hard to think clearly about the risks. (even then I think people fail to think clearly). Our human brains just try to rationalize the risks away. We see standing houses that predate known disasters and think " It must not have been that bad", not recognizing that we have an extreme case of survivor bias.

I am very thankful for learning to think critically. It's been a lifelong journey and I "think" I am getting better all the time. It does impact your daily life. Its not just about debunking someone else's mistakes. I find I look at other people's blunders now with a lot more charity than I used to, not because I think their blunder is okay, but because I know I might have made a similar blunder at some point. Each of these mistakes is a mistake I might be able to learn from without having to commit the mistake myself. Still, there are some people.....

 

[NorCal Dave]

My knee-jerk response thought to this was, "don't live in California".
And today, I read this and think it solves another problem, too:

California's population has actually been net decreasing the last few years after peaking in 2020:

https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/california-population-by-year/

Some of that is just market forces, with housing prices following the population increase, but even after a bit of drop once population declines started, the average price of a house is back up to $773k (median sale price $731k):

https://www.zillow.com/home-values/9/ca/

Now that's for the whole state. Where I live, near Paradise, the median sold price is $422k with the average home value being $316K. That seems to the result of the mix of new re-built homes post fire and older units that survived. While this isn't Malibu, it's still more than my older son and wife paid for a charming little 3 bed 2 bath home in a nice neighborhood in Sioux Falls, SD. So, as a 6th generation California born and raised kid, he moved away.

To some extent, the market conditions will force people away, at some point lessening the demand. In the meantime, the state is trying to force communities to build (approve) more and more housing. The whole thing is a bit off topic here, but in simple terms, the state determines how many units each community should be building, regardless of zoning laws, and holds them accountable for this state derived number. Should a community fall short of this number, one solution is the "Builder's remedy":

Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), known as the "Builder's Remedy," is a provision of California's Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or general plan.

https://www.hansonbridgett.com/publication/230307-2100-builders-remedy-faq

Builders can build even if their project violates the communities General Plan or zoning rules, IF the state determine the community is out of compliance with the state's housing goals. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the burned areas of SoCal going forward.

Ultimately, the question becomes, If not California, then where? Where do people live? Flood zones, fire zones, hurricane prone areas, tornado alley, on fault lines. People gotta live somewhere. Maybe more important isn't "where" but "how". How does one deal with nature in their particular local?

 

[qed]

By scientific, i simply mean logical/rational, as opposed so insurance or tax.

Well, if you're a systems wonk, the policy approach is some form of Plan Integration Resilience: https://planning.calpoly.edu/crp-faculty-research-design-innovative-wildfire-mitigation-solution.

Which is basically requiring identifying the particular threats in each region (rather than mandating a generic solution, like "controlled burns" or "more water tankers") and having each area develop a comprehensive approach toward fire prevention, fighting and mitigation along the wildland-urban interface.

Which may mean establishing and enforcing policies such as banning shrubbery near homes in certain neighborhoods, funding roof upgrades, adding (more) neighborhood fire safety measures to housing approvals, etc. (If people thought housing was expensive before, imagine what new construction will be like under a new wildfire regime, with tariffs on imported goods and a shortage of immigrant construction workers.) But what politicians like to point to is air tankers, fire trucks, and whatever unrelated policy they wanted to add or remove in the first place.

It takes some measure of state-level action to overcome local and regional resistance, but California is facing a severe housing shortage and an insurance crisis and if the state can't persuade insurers to come back it will have to deal with the cost of providing last-resort insurance. California lawmakers are also staring down the barrel of the 2026 elections and the pressure to do something while the legislative analysts's office said even before the disaster that the state budget has no leeway for new commitments.

That sort of thing, and others above.

I see California (I am seeing fires burning in neighbouring states too) having to put people in jail if their houses are in certain areas and don't meet certain standards?

But as I am watching a suburb burn down (with the winds), I am not sure you really have a solution, but to ban homes in certain areas.

[... some kind of no return policy ...]

 

[qed]

California's population has actually been net decreasing the last few years after peaking in 2020:

View attachment 75906
https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/california-population-by-year/

Some of that is just market forces, with housing prices following the population increase, but even after a bit of drop once population declines started, the average price of a house is back up to $773k (median sale price $731k):

View attachment 75907
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/9/ca/

Now that's for the whole state. Where I live, near Paradise, the median sold price is $422k with the average home value being $316K. That seems to the result of the mix of new re-built homes post fire and older units that survived. While this isn't Malibu, it's still more than my older son and wife paid for a charming little 3 bed 2 bath home in a nice neighborhood in Sioux Falls, SD. So, as a 6th generation California born and raised kid, he moved away.

To some extent, the market conditions will force people away, at some point lessening the demand. In the meantime, the state is trying to force communities to build (approve) more and more housing. The whole thing is a bit off topic here, but in simple terms, the state determines how many units each community should be building, regardless of zoning laws, and holds them accountable for this state derived number. Should a community fall short of this number, one solution is the "Builder's remedy":

Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), known as the "Builder's Remedy," is a provision of California's Housing Accountability Act that prevents jurisdictions without a substantially compliant housing element from denying certain housing projects, even if such projects do not comply with the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance or general plan.

https://www.hansonbridgett.com/publication/230307-2100-builders-remedy-faq

Builders can build even if their project violates the communities General Plan or zoning rules, IF the state determine the community is out of compliance with the state's housing goals. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the burned areas of SoCal going forward.

Ultimately, the question becomes, If not California, then where? Where do people live? Flood zones, fire zones, hurricane prone areas, tornado alley, on fault lines. People gotta live somewhere. Maybe more important isn't "where" but "how". How does one deal with nature in their particular local?

[... or perhaps the "market" will just ensure that ...]

 

[qed]

I left unchecked and the winds were in the right direction, could LA or San Francisco cities be reached?

 

[FatPhil]

Having lived in (as I suspect most of us have) many "dangerous" areas, I think it is more of a rationalization process. I grew up in an area with a known dangers (LA Basin) and just assumed that it is okay and I didn't need to worry about it. We joked about shake, bake, and slide being the seasons in Southern California, but did little to deal with it on a personal level. Then when I moved back to the area and purchased real estate in a high risk area, it took a talk with the fire chief for me to recognize that the danger was real and there were steps I could take to mitigate the risks. Still, until you have seen it up close, its hard to think clearly about the risks. (even then I think people fail to think clearly).

Henry Rollins thinks that people, in particular in Cali, fail to think clearly, and you seem to have forgotten flooding as a season (or is that part of your "slip "slide")

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVIFXpyIhmY


Predictably NSFW.

Edit: misquote fixed

 

[Stryder]

Henry Rollins thinks that people, in particular in Cali, fail to think clearly, and you seem to have forgotten flooding as a season (or is that part of your "slip")

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVIFXpyIhmY


Predictably NSFW.

Slide season is when it rains, especially after fires and the hillsides come down during the torrential downpours. So yes, includes flooding.

 

[jdog]

In fairness, the "living someplace dangerous because I like it here otherwise" thing is of course not limited to California. People live in lovely warm beach communities that will, over time, get wiped out by hurricanes. People live next to massive volcanoes, from Naples (next to Pompeii!) to the Pacific NW. People live downstream from dams, people live in valleys where avalanches can and do happen. People live in "tornado alley" and in regions where wars break out with some frequency and in cities where crime is high. Etc. Heck, I have a lot of trees in my yard, and even after having a great big honking one fall this year and just miss the house, I continue to live here, and have not had all the trees taken down.

I'd be curious if the "short timer" thing is prevalent in those sorts of places -- if so, I'd guess it would be more noteable the more frequent the disaster (volcanic eruptions that happen every several centuries vs. devastating hurricanes that hit a community every several decades vs.fires that might sweep through several times in a decade, maybe...

People may also be assuming that if something really was risky (building along the wildlands or in a flood plain or tornado zone) it somehow wouldn't be allowed.

Of course you can't stop people from drinking raw milk and undercooked pork, either.

 

[tobigtofool]

We don't need to turn this into a political argument where people blame the other side.

All California voters are at fault for the spread of this wildfire. They did not, and do not care about fire prevention. They don't ask for better fire prevention. They don't demand that their elected officials modernize our state.

We make so much money in this state. We have careers and other things to worry about.

This state makes enough money to have a fleet of aircraft at the ready for any instance, but we simply. Do. not. care.

There's no political argument, except do we spend more of our taxes on fire prevention or not?

The fires spread because we don't elect people running on modernizing our fire prevention standards. Maybe that will change this year. I hope so.

We can't just blame Gavin Newsome or the mayor for not doing something nobody asks them to do.

Maybe if the insurance companies stop providing fire insurance in CA we'll have no choice.

Happened with flood insurance.

The federal government took over flood insurance, establishing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), because the private insurance market was largely unable to provide affordable flood insurance due to the unpredictable and often devastating nature of floods, leaving many property owners without adequate protection; the federal government stepped in to make flood insurance more accessible and affordable for homeowners and businesses by creating a nationwide program managed by FEMA

Personally I'll just vote next time for anyone that regularly wears a fireman's hat during their election campaigns.

 

[JMartJr]

Of course you can't stop people from drinking raw milk and undercooked pork, either.

If you are drinking your pork, "undercooked" is the least of your worries!

People may also be assuming that if something really was risky (building along the wildlands or in a flood plain or tornado zone) it somehow wouldn't be allowed.

Possibly, but I suspect the big thing is "it hasn't happened to me yet, I'm probably fine." Which would not work as well for thing that happen more often to larger numbers of people -- I recall my in-laws were not too concerned about living in a low are along the bay in Pensacola, because it was such a lovely spot. They weathered a couple of "near misses" in hurricane season, and thought they were fine. Then the year came with two direct hits (or direct enough for our purposes) with the house being flooded out and having to evacuate, and they moved to the mountains of North Carolina. To get away from hurricanes. They did not live long enough to see Helene smash the NC mountains, or my father-in-law in particular would have been extremely irked...

 

[jdog]

There was a request for the scientific response -- this was co-authored by a climate economist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, along with some land-use types:
Opinion: California must adapt to new climate era to limit wildfire threat (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...-to-new-climate-era-to-limit-wildfire-threat/)

What is to be done to counter these devastating trends?

In the long run, we must continue the global fight against climate change, to at least slow the conditions fostering wildfires. And, just as coastal communities are beginning to respond to rising oceans, we should restrict development in high-risk areas and plan for possible relocation of existing development.

State General Plan Guidelines mandate local governments to consider climate impacts in their long-range planning, but many plans need updating. Residents should be encouraged to adopt better fire prevention practices, including safer construction and landscaping.

To the extent that climate change-induced conditions already exist, we must adapt. Starting in the highest-risk areas, existing structures must be retrofitted to add fire-resistant features and create surrounding defensible space. Every dollar invested in wildfire mitigation saves at least three times as much in reduced damages and fire suppression costs.

CalFire needs to update its maps of high fire-risk areas. Both new development and rebuilding in such areas should then be tightly regulated, similar to limitations on building in flood-prone areas.

Mortgage lenders and property insurers can influence development locations and transactions. Regulators should ensure that rates are actuarily fair, to keep insurers solvent while discouraging development in unsafe areas; that may require subsidizing low-income residents. And lenders should be required to factor wildfire vulnerability into loan underwriting.

Local and regional government agencies already are required by state law to prepare hazard mitigation plans for adapting to climate change impacts. Many jurisdictions have fallen behind in this and need to face consequences from the state if they fail to comply.

Firefighting agencies need more financial and human resources for effective fire prevention and response, especially by thinning flammable vegetation in high-risk areas. They should be empowered to collect fees from property owners in those areas to better fund their work.

All these measures will not eliminate Southern California's vulnerability to wildfires. But with climate change impacts upon us and growing, they provide important means of at least mitigating that threat.

 

[Mendel]

I see California (I am seeing fires burning in neighbouring states too) having to put people in jail if their houses are in certain areas and don't meet certain standards?

But as I am watching a suburb burn down (with the winds), I am not sure you really have a solution, but to ban homes in certain areas.

This looks exactly like the kind of problem insurance rates or property taxes are suited to address.

Make below-standard houses in danger areas very expensive to own.