Ideas on keeping the fires at bay in CALIFORNIA???

[goforit]

Well I think I may have one.

I believe that some how Californians need to build manmade lakes/reserviors within the
mountainsides of the forests, open fields and state/county parks.
Within 5 to 10 miles of communities.
Thousands of lakes.
Water desaliented from the OCEAN.
Water that can be tapped into via lines and hoses by Firemen and Forestrangers to nip fires before
they get out of control.
Set these lakes up in crucial locations.
It could create a great sanctuary for animals and fish as well.

Yah it will take money.... but its taking millions as we speak and is accomplishing nothing.
You talk about a public works project to create new jobs, well hell this is so important to
the world on a global environmental perspective.
We can not waiste any time!!!!
We have to do something....ASAP!!!!

[Deja Q]

1. Get Rush Limbaugh to bleat in the flames' direction. His hot air...

wait, that'll worsen the problem. Sorry about that...

[dkofos]

2. Build fireproof houses.

[tabatha]

4. Yes - that is possible.

The homes that did not burn in the Tea fire - had fire-resistant roofing.

Here is a website about SC fires:

http://www.californiachaparral.org/

and home protection tips:

http://www.californiachaparral.org/bprotectingyourhome.html

[Warpy]

17. I watched streaming video last night

and one firefighter said tile roofs didn't save many, that the embers were being pushed by hurricane force winds under the tiles and starting fires in those houses.

I don't think there's much of anything that will withstand fire like that except the stone/cement construction you see in Mexico with cement roofs. Even then embers can start fires in window and door frames if they're made of wood or vinyl.

[goforit]

25. So cement won't burn?

[tabatha]

26. There are ways to protect eaves.

I know people who live in high-risk areas who know how to protect eaves.

http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=1261

[Warpy]

42. I'm sure there are

but it doesn't seem to be part of the building code and probably should be.

[goforit]

5. Yep that definitely is a great idea, but we need those trees too for the

environment.
And we don't need the carbon emissions from the fires hence the air pollution.
We also need to protect the creatures that live in them.

[uppityperson]

3. What about the wind problem?

Maybe they should set up more wind generators all around communities and fix them so they can blow back if the winds get too strong. I'm not serious, but wind is a really big problem. When the winds get blowing, flames are fanned massively.

[tabatha]

7. If blown embers land on flammable material then there is a problem.

Change all roofing to non-flammable, and protect eaves - and houses won't burn in even high wind.

[uppityperson]

10. Right, so you blow back into the wind, cancelling out the breeze.

See?

[tabatha]

11. What a waste of energy.

Rather have a sprinkler system on the roof.

I would like to see something blow back on the 70 mph winds that spread the Tea fire. Not possible.

[uppityperson]

27. I agree, was being silly there.

Winds are a big problem, blowing sparks not just on top of but under and inside structures. I agree that roof sprinklers would be a big help.

[goforit]

13. Yes this is a huge dilemna,

I wonder though, if the water via hose can be fanned by this wind over the fires as well.
And even, well, I'am crazy but,
We can even build a manmade river alley in five mile circles and/or radius around each LA hill (or canyon) around certain Forest Parks
that constantly recycle itself and when a fire starts up huge fountains spraying toward the center forest guided(as a captain of the ship)
wih the wind saturating it.

[Cleita]

40. Planting trees for windbreaks works better, but development and

erosion from development keeps trees from growing and they have to be watered. I think some planning could divert waste water into irrigating the trees.

[TomInTib]

6. I am pretty sure John S McCain,III, has a plan.

Hell, he has one for everything else.

[mike_c]

8. an ecologist's perspective....

Don't waste effort or money trying to prevent or fight fires in SoCal without restoring the land to its natural fire regime. Fire suppression only sets up catastrophic fire conditions-- what we're seeing now, throughout much of the west, is the legacy of that failed ecological policy. Chaparral and western coniferous forests are MEANT to burn periodically. Trying to make it otherwise is futile, and damaging.

[tabatha]

9. Chaparral myths

Myth #1: Chaparral needs fire to "renew" and clean out "built-up" vegetation.

Myth #2: Past fire suppression has built up "unnatural" levels of fuel (vegetation) in the chaparral.

Myth #3: Large chaparral wildfires are unusual and preventable.

Myth #4: Chaparral is adapted to fire.

Myth #5: Chaparral plant species are "oozing combustible resins."

Myth #6: Hot chaparral fires "sterilize" the soil.

Myth #7: Chemical inhibition in the chaparral (allelopathy).

http://www.californiachaparral.org/chaparralmyths.html

http://www.californiachaparral.org/blog1/

[mike_c]

16. Rick Halsey's notions are not well regarded by many...

...if not most fire/forest ecologists.

Richard W. Halsey, M.A.
Naturalist/Fire Ecology
Southern Calfornia Field Institute
Telephone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Richard W. Halsey earned undergraduate degrees from the University of California in Environmental Studies and Anthropology. During graduate work he received teaching credentials in Life, Physical and Social Science and a Master’s Degree in Education. He taught physics and chemistry in a private institution, later moving to the public school system to teach biology. To create a more active learning environment, he developed a chaparral research program for his students to study nature firsthand in a nearby canyon. He was awarded San Diego Unified School District Teacher of Year in 1991, and a Christa McAuliffe Fellowship in 1993.

[tabatha]

20. The California Native Plant Society thought well enough of him

for a special issue of Fremontia on Chaparral, articles compiled by Rick Halsey. Have you read his book?

[mike_c]

28. no, I haven't....

On the other hand, quite a number of my immediate colleagues, who hold quite different views about fire ecology, also publish in Fremontia and give talks for CNPS.

Truth be told, some of the things Halsey publishes on his web site are not that different than the western fire ecology paradigm (for want of a better description), but he somehow arrives at different conclusions. And I don't dispute that he's an expert on chaparral, just that any suggestion that chaparral isn't fire maintained is not supported by the historical data. And the stuff IS explosively flammable, despite Halsey's contention that it isn't evolved to burn. Mediterranean shrub biome floras often exhibit similar flammability all over the globe-- look at Australia, for example.

Anyway, I'm not sure that Halsey and the Chaparral Institute aren't serving a broader agenda than simply studying chaparral ecology-- just a gut feeling, entirely, I must add. But his dismissal of Richard Minnich's views as "promotion of incorrect and potentially damaging notions about wildland fire management" is worrisome. Minnich is a well respected UC fire ecologist.

[tabatha]

29. I am aware that the germination of the seeds of some plants are

"enhanced" by fire. But during a discussion with some biologists on a field trip, it seems that there are other routes to germination as well by those same plants.

There have not been that many fires on the Channel Islands - with similar chaparral. But there may be some distortion in those habitats, because of the damage caused by pigs, goats, sheep, etc. where large build-up of flammable material did not occur.

There is also some differentiation between chaparral and true forests, where whole populations of certain conifer species can regenerate and grow after fire.

However, it is well-known that frequent fires in chaparral are damaging to the point where type conversion occurs - not a good thing.

[Born_A_Truman]

45. He's also well regarded in the wildlandfire fighting community

We have corresponded and he sends me his newsletter and supports the WFF (assumed name)and he is passionate in his efforts to help with California's wildland fires.

[Kali]

22. re #5

2 of the most irritating and wrongheaded "facts" that get spouted off by people who should know better are allelopathy and the benefits of cryptogamic soils. :banghead:

[mike_c]

30. just out of curiosity, do you object to the notion of allelopathy in general...

...or just as a factor in spacing of chaparral shrubs?

[Kali]

35. I have watched range specialists state without equivocation that various

plants are allelopathic. I have seen these same experts stutter and spin trying to explain why there will be grasses and forbs growing right up to the trunks or bases of those same plants when you drag them out of the office and out into the real world on the ground. Fun, actually.

Absence of growth does NOT equal allelopathy. But is sure sounds interesting and dumb students who never go out in the field will believe it and continue to pass it on to the next batch of "academics" as well.

Hell, even tamarisk, with its "deadly" salt secretions hasn't been proven to be allelopathic. It is a fascinating phenomenon that has yet to be actually proved.

[tabatha]

46. Yes, I have heard (can't remember where/when) that allelopathy is a myth.

(i.e. not from the Halsey website.)

[goforit]

23. Thanks for the education.

I do feel though, it is important to restrict fires especially if it is close to society.
Certainly we won't be able to keep them from happenning,
but guiding them and reducing them is important for the living, whether human,plant or animal.

[malaise]

18. Serious question - I don't seem to remember so many

of these fires in the 1980s. How have the reduction of regulations and the reduction in government employees in parks, etc (promoted by St Ronny of Reagan) facilitated this madness. Are more people living in endangered areas and encroaching on forest lands?

[mike_c]

21. more people are certainly living in dangerous areas....

I can't comment on whether there were fewer fires 20-30 years ago, or whether they were more or less severe-- I just don't have data in front of me, although I'm sure it's available. There HAS been a long drought, if I'm not mistaken, for the last several years. And the greater number of people living in formerly wild areas means increased opportunity for fires to start and increased pressure to suppress/fight wildfire once it begins.

[malaise]

38. Thanks mike_c

:D

[lob1]

12. Your suggests would help, but wouldn't be the answer.

Our Santa Barbara fires of Thursday is the perfect example. Seventy mile an hour winds made fighting the fires almost impossible. Planes couldn't get in the air. The few helicopters that were used were not very effective, as the 70 mph winds spread and evaporated the water drops so that very little water actually reached the ground. Firefighters on the ground could barely stand up in the wind, much less fight a fire. Sometimes, sadly, there just isn't an answer.

[Kali]

14. de salinating sea water is pretty expensive and has its own environmental problems

hence it is rarely done for anything other than drinking water in places that have no other realistic solutions.

building standards would go a lot further to "solving" the problem. zoning to keep homes out of some of those areas might help as well.

[goforit]

24. How about building natural looking firewalls?

Within a halfmile of communities?

[Kali]

37. not sure what that would consist of or if it would even be functional in rugged canyon country

If unlimited amounts of manual labor were available, I suppose clearing dry vegetation for some safe distance away and back from developed areas could help, but with the kinds of intense winds, overdevelopment in flamable environments, drought, and budget issues I don't see much hope. Perhaps the very rich who can simply afford to lose and rebuild is the balance. ;-)

[XemaSab]

15. I have an idea!

Don't let people build houses in the urban-wildland interface!

That fire in SB was WAITING to happen.

[rufus dog]

19. Being in a fire area in SoCal here is my take

My house is the second house in from a canyon to the north, across the street also drops into the canyon so there are three potential houses that could catch then cause my house to go up. Seeing that the houses are already built and the eaves are wood and have north facing attic vents here is my idea.

A modified drip/spray system on the Northern facing eaves. The spray would shoot toward the eaves to knock down/cool down embers. For the large Attic vent I was thinking about a 3/4" reinforced concrete cover. This would require me to either climb up in the attic or attach from outside. The small (approx. 2" diameter) vent holes into the attic are still open, my hope would be the spray would be sufficient.

[rustydad]

32. Rainbirds

Hard plumbed rainbirds pointing up from the ground to hit your eaves and walls, all four or more is good. If your neighbors houses are within 100 feet I would shutter your windows. Most homes are lost because the heat from a house burning next store blew out the windows and after that it is game over. Bob

[rustydad]

31. NO

In SCal they have built housing of the wrong design, wrong landscape and wrong locations. And they have built millions. I live in the chaparral where in 1955 a fire burned 85,000 acres. My oak trees still have the scars of that fire and previous fires. Both my sons fought fires for the Forest Service. One is a Captain for the Santa Barbara County Fire Dept. and specializes if bush fire fighting. He fought the Tea Fire Thursday night that burned over 200 very high end houses in Montecito. He is now in LA as a division commander on the Highway Fire. To live in or near brush one must clear all brush within 100 feet of a home. In the 100 foot zone only plants that are not flammable should be allowed. No wood piles, no wood fences. A good water supply is critical as well as 60# pressure. The home must be fire proof with no cracks or openings for flying embers to lodge. Sprinklers that dose the walls and roof with water is good insurance. The windows should have fire proof shutters. This works if you have 40 acres as I do. How do you do this for millions of homes already built on postage size lots? Here is the way it works. Fire starts in brush. Wind blows it into a tract and the houses on the edge up against the fire catch fire. The heat from the burning house is much more intense than the burning brush and it catches the next house on fire......keep going. The brush fire is now turned into an urban conflagration that feeds on itself, no brush needed. California started building in the hills as it ran out of cheap farmland to pave over. The planners were/are morons that let this happen still to this day because the issue was clear and the answer obvious. Build fire proof, landscape fire proof, and require a green belt between all brushlands and housing developments. Hell in Goleta (next to Santa Barbara) they had the 12,000 acre Gap Fire this summer. But the foothills of Goleta are covered with avocado and lemon orchards. Only one house was lost and it was a remote cabin. To retrofit millions of homes and yards to what is survivable or install green belts is impossible. Bob

[tabatha]

33. Might be a good source of jobs.

"To retrofit millions of homes and yards to what is survivable or install green belts is impossible. "

[rustydad]

34. Well

Most people want to get paid to work. California is around 15 billion in a hole, maybe worse. The Federal debt is anything from 11.5 trillion, maybe much more. Tell you what, let's get Obama to bring home all military from around the globe. Let's put them to work fireproofing SoCal homes. I'll go for it. Bob

[tabatha]

36. While they are making them electricty efficient ....

they may as well make them fire-proof. One company expanded enormously making homes and businesses efficient, why can't someone go into business fire-proofing, especially the Mac mansions that have a lot of flammable material around them.

[EFerrari]

41. I agree with that. We have 20 acres in the San Jose foothills

and even with the 100ft, we get the coastal winds barreling up here every afternoon, and have to be very careful. If this land is developed (and it will be shortly), it's a fire waiting to happen. :(

[Cleita]

39. I think we need to stop the erosion that development causes.

Oddly, it has a lot to do with the strong winds that fan the fires. But there is nothing we can do to stop global warming until the rest of the world cooperates. We need to get our seasonal rainy season back.

[tabatha]

44. The US is the greatest contributer.

We need to start at home to set an example.

[hunter]

43. Pay arsonists a dollar for every acre their fires burn.

Soon enough it would be impossible to start a fire anywhere that burned more than a few acres.

:hide:

[dysfunctional press]

47. lots and lots of rain.

nt

[slackmaster]

48. Good in the very short term only

In the long run wet years cause more fuel to build up.