> This week, the U.S. Forest Service directed its employees in California to stop prescribed burning “for the foreseeable future,” a directive that officials said is meant to preserve staff and equipment to fight wildfires if needed.<p>It sounds like it's a resourcing issue, not a change in philosophy. It doesn't change the fact that it won't be happening though.
Slight tangent, USFS has been using outdated models for their prescribed burns, and burned as late as July in my area, right at the beginning of fire season and months away from any expected precipitation. This turned into a big wildfire in my area and they spent ~$100m putting it out. You may have been able to get away with burning during the summer in the 90's here, but not anymore.<p>I'm not opposed to prescribed burns, either, I think they are totally necessary. But do them in the fall, when you've got nothing but rain and cool temperatures for the next 6 months, instead of weeks before the hottest and driest stretch of the year.<p>As to why they burn in early summer, they said at a community meeting it's because it requires fewer people to manage the fire.
California is in the middle of a huge fire insurance crisis. It started with the intentional housing supply restrictions that drove up property prices and rents. In suburban areas, rebuilding costs were mostly increased indirectly through higher wages (as tradespeople and laborers have to make rent.) This sent insurance rates through the roof and caused a wave of policy cancellations. Many insurance companies exited the market altogether [1].<p>Climate change is also to blame. The firestorms of 2017, 2018 and 2020 broke all records, and were insanely expensive to rebuild after. The typical trigger is a katabatic wind event [2] after a long dry spell. This massively reduces relative humidity (often to 5-10%,) making ignition much easier. Once a fire starts, the wind spreads it extremely quickly. Sustained wind speeds of 50-60mph are not uncommon near mountain peaks.<p>In 2017/2018/2020, the precipitating events were so intense that the initial responses focused exclusively on helping the residents out. By the time the actual firefighting began, the fires were already enormous.<p>It's surprising to me that we haven't seriously looked into large-scale sprinkler systems, such as this one deployed in Spain [3]. These could take a major bite out of the initial uncontrolled stage. They could either be deployed in the wild along naturally defensible lines, or at the perimeters of inhabited areas.<p>They're expensive upfront, but not as expensive as the alternative. They might also reduce the need for prescribed burns.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/10/home-insurance-park-wildfire-california-butte-county" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/10/home...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/spanish-wildfire-defenses/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/story/spanish-wildfire-defenses/</a>
"scenario shows what happens when Congress is less committed than California to tackling forest management. With wildfire management funding constantly tied up in unpredictable budget debates, the current state-federal partnership is fragile and based on the whims of the legislative and executive branches, which can withhold funding based on which political party is currently in power. The Forest Service’s latest decision is the consequence of these issues"<p>Would California have standing for damages? What would honestly be the consequences if the Governor and Legislature ordered Calfire to conduct controlled burns on federal land? (Can the Forest Service give Calfire permission to conduct burns on its land?)
I'm very confused by this.<p>An ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure. But now they're doing away with the prevention... to be able to afford the cure instead (which they are now likely guaranteed to need more of)?<p>I'm genuinely confused and trying to figure out the logic. Is this a california/usa political kind of thing?
Somewhat meta, but can someone explain what an organization like this CEPR .. actually is?<p>I see these types all the time, they're the ones that produce various "studies" that are always get linked on HN. They usually have some generic name, some combination of various buzzwords, and their website is them displaying all the various "research" and "studies" they've produced.<p>Their stated goal is apparently to just "promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives".<p>How do they actually make money? They say they've got 33 staff members and 14 board members/advisors. Do they all work for free?<p>Do they actually sell some product somewhere? I see nothing on their site where something is for sale or where you can hire them for anything. Are they supported by ads somewhere?<p>All they seem to do is just spend year and year pumping out various "studies" and articles. Are there unknown backers paying them to produce this content?
Yes, go back to primal forest as far as you can, then one dry hot year the country will burn flat?
If we build houses in forested areas = that will happen. Home owners and insurers along with state/city must burden home owners with enforced brush/tree clearance laws.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1922" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1922</a>
It's wild that we can't afford to solve the root problem because we're spending too much time and money literally fighting actual forest fires.
The US Forest Service used to deliver 12 billion board feet of lumber a year. The sale of this lumber helped fund the org and its mission. Environmental lawsuits from activists in the 90s drastically restricted the amount of logging being done on these lands and production dropped to a trickle.<p>(The Biden administration increased the amount of logging in the last few years from a historic low. But the goal is still only to log up to 4 billion board feet next year.)<p>While not a complete replacement for each other, prescribed burns are specifically more necessary now because of the lack of logging. And more importantly, these agencies are only collecting a fraction of the fees they once did to sustain their mission <i>while having more unharvested forests to maintain</i>.
These types of articles never list the actual arguments that are supposed to convince congressmen to expend some of their finite political capital for committee battles…<p>If it’s known to be at least partially political, then that would seem to be a pretty critical thing to know.<p>Edit: And needed to gauge relative prospects versus everything else on the agenda…
As always happens in these threads - and for good reason - let's be sure to mention the book "Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources", by M. Kat Anderson. I learned about this book here on HN and it has transformed the way I think about this topic.<p>I particularly recommend the superb audiobook.<p>Through a series of interviews, this book makes the case the practice of basketweaving by indigenous people living in present-day California - and the massive and well-organized trade of hundreds of different types of baskets - is/was not merely a mechanism of subsistence, but actually a brilliant wildfire control strategy.<p>Anderson and her many stunning interview subjects - indigenous people recalling the practices of grandparents and their siblings - make a compelling case that by encouraging the hundreds of different species which went into the creation of baskets to grow in certain places and not others, ancestors sculpted the landscape into one in which fires burned out in predictable patterns rather than scorching a significant portion of the continent.
California’s state budget is higher than the gdp of Finland.<p>You would think this would be high up on the list of hiring competent people to manage this part of CA life.
frustrating. I have sympathy for them, b/c it is actually a catch-22. one rogue prescribed burn can cost millions and millions.<p>meanwhile forests keep burning in unplanned ways.
It never ceases to amaze me that a country with such abundant natural resources, the largest economy in the world, and a massive military budget, doesn't have the resources to deal with these existential issues.
This is like owning a house and stacking cordwood right next to it so all the termites can get in.<p>If you own something you got to take care of it and if you don't want to take care of it you should get rid of it.
Probably the most effective thing we could do is re-imagine Smokey Bear from a "put out your campfire" mascot to a spokesperson for effective forest management & prescribed fire.
Our prescribed burns are not nearly aggressive enough... now this. Wow.<p>In 2021, nearly half of RMNP burned down due to the lack of effective prescribed burns. I know the NPS/USFS are criminally underfunded, but losing these wonders is also a crime.<p>Edited: us forest service
1. Bureaucrats choose to stop prescribed burns to ensure availability of staff and equipment to fight forest fires<p>2. Forest fires increase due to build up of flammable materials<p>3. Bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for their decision
The government has over and over again proven itself totally incompetent at managing public forests. These should be sold to private owners who actually care for them.
I'm no longer a resident of Caifornia, but California should use eminent domain to seize the forest land, or just burn it and ignore federal law. What are they possibly going to do?