Love what you do, but every time you call Bobbie Garcia the Forest Supervisor on the Angeles, your credibility takes a small hit - he's the FMO/Chief 1. Small distinction, but it matters.
The focus on the water system is misplaced. I've dealt with municipal water here and abroad. Once that fire got it's teeth into the residential, it was over in the conditions present, and you suddenly have thousands of residential connections free flowing into the street. Goodbye pressure, especially on a gravity pressurized,uphill push.
Fuels....
Silverado Fire, SoCal. 2020. 85mph winds, same fuel model.
Orchard Hills subdivision. 100yd belt of managed vegetation. One palm tree caught an ember. That's it. The other side of that belt got nuked. Gone.
We all know fuels mitigation is key. They slashed the budget, they lay off the seasonals, the CCC crews are nowhere to be seen, etc, etc. Multiple hoops for permitting and air quality boards vetoing the limited windows for burning that we barely have as it is.
But everyone is debating water and response times.
When it's in the buildings at 80mph, it's too late. You're not stopping shit. It's Dresden and it's gonna run it's course. Mass ember showers coming down like incendiaries. It's how we leveled Tokyo with B-29s.
As most of us know "Hotshot" (the documentary) speaks to this with brutal honesty, and those of us in the field also know it by doing.
I agree, the focus on the water system is not that relevant, at least if we want to talk about how this destruction could have been prevented. Even if the water had kept flowing, I doubt the results would have been much different. In extreme conditions like these, we all know firefighting efforts are completely overwhelmed. Once a fire gets established, it's off to the races.
Another topic that I think is mostly irrelevant in this very extreme fire behavior situation is that of the number of firefighting resources available and reduced funding of the LAFD. Don't get me wrong, this is an important topic and certainly suppression operations can and do have impact under less extreme fire behavior. I've seen it over my 30 year wildland career. There are a ton of improvements that should be made here (pay, dispatching, etc.), but I don't think those improvements would have made much of a difference for these CA fires. Does any experience firefighter think that, if we only had a few more strike teams of engines, or prepositioned a couple of shot crews, etc. we could have stopped these fires?
I really think the only way you make a big impact on a tragedy like this to dramatically reduce the structures lost is home hardening and fuel management. And I mean "extreme" home hardening and fuel management. If all of the homes' exteriors were made of non-flammable materials (concrete, stucco, metal, etc.), screened vents, no wood decks and fences, almost no vegetation in yards, etc. The adjacent wildland would also need "extreme" management if we were to want to significantly slow a fire like this to give firefighters any opportunities. Very frequent prescribed burns, herds of goats on the hillsides mowing down grass, etc. On the level of something we don't currently do.
Yes, the public will resist all of this. They like the style of homes they currently live in. They like the vegetation on the hillsides. I want to have hope that when these communities rebuild they will build bomber homes that cannot ignite. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. And it's too bad there hasn't been more advocacy for these things, most everything in the news media seems to focus on the wrong things because it is either sensational and/or scores political points. This is a lost opportunity.
There was a pretty good article in the LA Times discussing a lot of this. Much of the information comes from Jack Cohen, who retired from the USFS Missoula Firelab a few years ago.
Love what you do, but every time you call Bobbie Garcia the Forest Supervisor on the Angeles, your credibility takes a small hit - he's the FMO/Chief 1. Small distinction, but it matters.
🙏 Thanks, appreciate the correction. 8 podcasts in 6 days has my head filled with all sorts of info.
I get it man and all good. Keep up the kick ass work.
🙏
Love this guy, thanks for the update
Chief Fennessy knows his stuff, and always calls it like it is. 🙏
👍👍
Great episode.
The focus on the water system is misplaced. I've dealt with municipal water here and abroad. Once that fire got it's teeth into the residential, it was over in the conditions present, and you suddenly have thousands of residential connections free flowing into the street. Goodbye pressure, especially on a gravity pressurized,uphill push.
Fuels....
Silverado Fire, SoCal. 2020. 85mph winds, same fuel model.
Orchard Hills subdivision. 100yd belt of managed vegetation. One palm tree caught an ember. That's it. The other side of that belt got nuked. Gone.
We all know fuels mitigation is key. They slashed the budget, they lay off the seasonals, the CCC crews are nowhere to be seen, etc, etc. Multiple hoops for permitting and air quality boards vetoing the limited windows for burning that we barely have as it is.
But everyone is debating water and response times.
When it's in the buildings at 80mph, it's too late. You're not stopping shit. It's Dresden and it's gonna run it's course. Mass ember showers coming down like incendiaries. It's how we leveled Tokyo with B-29s.
As most of us know "Hotshot" (the documentary) speaks to this with brutal honesty, and those of us in the field also know it by doing.
I agree, the focus on the water system is not that relevant, at least if we want to talk about how this destruction could have been prevented. Even if the water had kept flowing, I doubt the results would have been much different. In extreme conditions like these, we all know firefighting efforts are completely overwhelmed. Once a fire gets established, it's off to the races.
Another topic that I think is mostly irrelevant in this very extreme fire behavior situation is that of the number of firefighting resources available and reduced funding of the LAFD. Don't get me wrong, this is an important topic and certainly suppression operations can and do have impact under less extreme fire behavior. I've seen it over my 30 year wildland career. There are a ton of improvements that should be made here (pay, dispatching, etc.), but I don't think those improvements would have made much of a difference for these CA fires. Does any experience firefighter think that, if we only had a few more strike teams of engines, or prepositioned a couple of shot crews, etc. we could have stopped these fires?
I really think the only way you make a big impact on a tragedy like this to dramatically reduce the structures lost is home hardening and fuel management. And I mean "extreme" home hardening and fuel management. If all of the homes' exteriors were made of non-flammable materials (concrete, stucco, metal, etc.), screened vents, no wood decks and fences, almost no vegetation in yards, etc. The adjacent wildland would also need "extreme" management if we were to want to significantly slow a fire like this to give firefighters any opportunities. Very frequent prescribed burns, herds of goats on the hillsides mowing down grass, etc. On the level of something we don't currently do.
Yes, the public will resist all of this. They like the style of homes they currently live in. They like the vegetation on the hillsides. I want to have hope that when these communities rebuild they will build bomber homes that cannot ignite. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. And it's too bad there hasn't been more advocacy for these things, most everything in the news media seems to focus on the wrong things because it is either sensational and/or scores political points. This is a lost opportunity.
There was a pretty good article in the LA Times discussing a lot of this. Much of the information comes from Jack Cohen, who retired from the USFS Missoula Firelab a few years ago.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-11/fire-experts-asses-los-angeles-blazes-amid-changing-times