Thanks for the explanation the same exact issues came up when other parts of California had to confront the same exact stuff in past wildfires that LA is facing today. This is why CalFire uses airplanes and Helicopters to disperse fire retardant in previous fires when the hydrants are not available or not working.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Fire coverage thread
- Thread starter crainbebo
- Start date
Their making such a hysterical fuss out of the clothespin on that particular jacket, all I can say is, this brings a whole new meaning to the term yellow journalism.
And guys, before we get too carried away---this is a thread about fire coverage. I'm totally up for Local TV News follies, but it should be its own thread.
The death toll has risen to 16. That's just the known dead:
www.nbcnews.com
California wildfires live updates: Death toll rises to 16 as Palisades Fire expands east to Brentwood and Encino
Gov. Gavin Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.
www.nbcnews.com
OK, back to the very serious topic at hand.The death toll has risen to 16. That's just the known dead:
California wildfires live updates: Death toll rises to 16 as Palisades Fire expands east to Brentwood and Encino
Gov. Gavin Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.
I just learned a few posts above that "empty fire hydrants, failures to maintain brush clearance, forest thinning, and underfunded fire departments" are just "political" items. It is this type of thinking that costs lives, homes, businesses, and livelihoods. The stunning effort to cover-up the crisis of competence in this matter while so many suffer so much is simply unfathomable to me.
Maybe. One could also include global warming to that list, but not everyone would agree. There's another "political" item.
The fact of the matter is that the drought went longer this year than it has in the past. As a result, the Santa Ana winds came at a time when the brush should have been wet. Then there's the situation of arsonists, who apparently had something to do with the Kenneth fire. And sure, there needs to be a system to handle the overgrowth in the canyons and mountains. That doesn't do anything to replace the homes and neighborhoods destroyed by this fire.
One of my friends who lost his home said that the neighborhood had seen fires before. They live at the base of the San Gabriel mountains. Their house was 70 years old, and has seen lots of fires. But they had never had fire coupled with hurricane-force winds. That's what destroyed their house.
Also in the article there are reports that 13 people are reported missing but law enforcement are currently unsure for now if some of the reported missing are the deceased wildfire victims confirmed for now given the situation.The death toll has risen to 16. That's just the known dead:
California wildfires live updates: Death toll rises to 16 as Palisades Fire expands east to Brentwood and Encino
Gov. Gavin Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir.
Hydrants:Why did fire hydrants run dry across Los Angeles?
(Short version: Hydrants are pressure-dependent, meant to supply water for a few houses, not thousands all at the same time)
Brush clearance: Fact check: Could brush clearance have prevented the Palisades Fire?
(Short version: What's happening in L.A. this time is way more about the winds than it is about the fuel)
Forest thinning: As I said to David Eduardo, this isn't forest. This is Southern California scrub.
Underfunded fire departments: Did Mayor Karen Bass really cut the fire department budget? The answer gets tricky
(Essential pull quote: "City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, whose office helps prepare the city budget, said that overall fire department overtime, counting all categories, actually increased in this year’s budget by nearly $18 million. In addition, he said the budget reductions did not limit the number of firefighters who responded to the Palisades fire, or how long they worked.")
And let's remember that 44 Republicans (10 Senators, 34 Representatives) in Congress voted against the American Relief Act of 2025, which contained $75 million in wildfire prevention funding.
The bill passed without them, but many of those 44 are among the loudest critics this week of how California officials (who are Democrats) are dealing with a natural disaster of epic proportions---one that it's very likely would not have been any different if Larry Elder were governor or Rick Caruso were mayor.
Last edited:
Sometimes a natural disaster is just a natural disaster that's beyond humans' capability to control.
One of the news reports I saw today noted that you could fit the states of Rhode Island and Delaware inside just Los Angeles county. Who's supposed to clear all that brush?
One Palisades resident said: Even with full water pressure, no amount of water was going to control a 30 foot wall of fire coming at you at 60 miles an hour. That's what wiped out entire neighborhoods in a matter of hours. The only thing to do is run. You have to be realistic. These fire departments aren't meant to deal with things like this. When you see the amount of destruction, the intensity of the heat, and the short period of time when this all happened, you start to realize that this was much bigger than a bunch of fire engines with hoses and water. They've been trying to control this fire with airplanes and helicopters for three days, and even that hasn't had much effect.
And what would it cost, and where would that money come from?
Taxpayer dollars? Expect a fight from the very same Republicans who are taking potshots now.
Fire season in California is usually over by November. The water year begins in October and the rainy season is generally considered October through March.
So, on the second week of January, L.A., which has missed out on any meaningful rainfall (Northern California has been luckier, with Sacramento getting 161% of normal rainfall as of the end of November), gets hit with winds up to 100 miles per hour.
Any fire that starts in those conditions is going far and fast.
Flaming embers and debris blown by the wind can start new blazes a mile or more away.
At least one of the Southern California fires this week appears to have been arson. We'll learn eventually about the others.
Last edited:
A P.S.
Until now, where the death toll is 15 and likely to go hire, the deadliest wildfire in L.A. history was the Canyon Inn Fire, in the summer of 1968. Eight people, seven teenagers from a probation camp and their foreman, were killed.
It was also the second-largest in terms of acreage until now.
Ronald Reagan was Governor. Sam Yorty was Mayor. Both were conservatives.
Nature does what nature does.
www.lacountyfiremuseum.com
Until now, where the death toll is 15 and likely to go hire, the deadliest wildfire in L.A. history was the Canyon Inn Fire, in the summer of 1968. Eight people, seven teenagers from a probation camp and their foreman, were killed.
It was also the second-largest in terms of acreage until now.
Ronald Reagan was Governor. Sam Yorty was Mayor. Both were conservatives.
Nature does what nature does.
CANYON INN FIRE - Los Angeles County Fire Museum
Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/LosAngelesCountyFireMuseum/ Twitter@LACoFireMuseum
www.lacountyfiremuseum.com
Watching that video really hurts.
I've seen so much of this over the past decade, and it doesn't get any better.
I've been fortunate to have been spared from any destruction, but I'm worried my luck will eventually run out. At the rate things are going, it seems inevitable.
c
And finally, here's why it matters where you get your news.
David J. Harris, Jr. is a host on Newsmax. The guy in the ball cap in the picture on the right? He's Lewis, just Lewis---from Plainview Farm in Northern Virginia.
Lewis went on TikTok----from Northern Virginia---to say that California had held 60 firetrucks from Oregon en route to the fires in L.A. for emissions testing.
That's good enough for Harris and Dinesh D'Souza, and a whole bunch of folks on the right, who took this video from---let's face it---some f***in' guy on the other side of the country who didn't know what he was talking about---and amplified it.
Gavin Newsom called BS. Afterward, Harris removed his post---but it's still getting circulation from a lot of other conservatives.
J
David J. Harris, Jr. is a host on Newsmax. The guy in the ball cap in the picture on the right? He's Lewis, just Lewis---from Plainview Farm in Northern Virginia.
Lewis went on TikTok----from Northern Virginia---to say that California had held 60 firetrucks from Oregon en route to the fires in L.A. for emissions testing.
That's good enough for Harris and Dinesh D'Souza, and a whole bunch of folks on the right, who took this video from---let's face it---some f***in' guy on the other side of the country who didn't know what he was talking about---and amplified it.
Gavin Newsom called BS. Afterward, Harris removed his post---but it's still getting circulation from a lot of other conservatives.
JOne more. From a friend of a friend on Facebook:
Is a new plan for delivering Delta water worse than Trump’s rules? Environmentalists say yes.
When the Trump administration presented a new plan exporting more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta five years ago, state officials and environmentalists objected that the new rules would increase the chances that salmon, smelt and steelhead would go extinct.
apnews.com
Fact check: Why is Trump blaming the LA fires on Newsom's water policies?
Fires in Los Angeles County ignited because of fierce winds and extremely dry conditions. President-elect Donald Trump blamed California water policies for the blazes.
calmatters.org
Trump's Blame Claims About Wildfire Response - FactCheck.org
As wildfires continued to rage in Southern California, President-elect Donald Trump took to social media with several false and misleading claims casting blame on California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, and President Joe Biden.
www.factcheck.org
If your wondering how the largest fire in LA County history got politicized in the rest of the country it came from this one. This is when the advisors of Trump bring up the Delta Smelt and the Sacramento Delta in terms of sending more water to other parts of the state. CalMatters and others had to fact check the claims. It's not just that protecting the delta is important to save endangered species also water allocation needs to be proportional to the needs of the rest of the state. Also the rest of the state has to deal with the same exact issues LA is facing today the next time wildfires hit those places.
Well, I don't have a lot of faith in any government and I left Calif 15 years ago. my first house was in Northridge (a little rancher) and I was there for the 94 quake, and actually found the gov't response to be rather competent, and they subsequently required changes to the building code to mitigate damages when the next big one happens. I got lucky with that house, because my then USAA quake insurance covered most of the damage.
But as time went on, while taxes rose steadily, services & competency declined - it was noticeable if one was looking. our needs changed with a family (schools/safety). We eventually left, as I did not see much of an ROI on the taxes. btw, i don't mind taxes if I believe the policies are generally sound and officials quasi-competent. For example, the place we moved to next had huge property tax rates (huge) but I did not think much of it, as wow did we have excellent infrastructure.
So i disagree that "stuff happens", and I think I'm entitled to a view since my property in Altadena burned down. This is a failure to learn lessons of the past, a failure to invest in infrastructure, a failure to enforce code that mitigates damages. and maybe that means a whole lot more in taxes, or the realization that structures are forbidden in certain areas. Certainly, market forces through pricing and availability of property insurance will address some of this, and no doubt politicans will scream about corporate greed...but...news flash - insurance companies just use statistics and actuarial tables.
I'm not going to blame a party or person, would be pointless. Any reasonable person can just drive around LA County and see that lack of capital investment. What is ironic is politicians talk lot about climate change, and so we should conclude they believe it to be a clear and present danger - my question of the elected officials - ok, we accept climate change - but what policies and investments have you made to address adverse impacts that will therefore accrue to LA County (more fires, less water, whatever) and the answer is not much. Are they virtue signaling, or are they fearful to deliver the hard news about the cost to address this stuff?
My sense is that the true cost of living in LA County should be a lot higher than we have been paying. But without a substantive tax base (which is declining) we will continue the slow death spiral - unless somehow the Feds will fund most of the deferred maintenance and the new things we need to address adversity from climate change. I mean, $310 billion for high speed rail is cool, but maybe we have higher priorities.
In summary, fires happen and damage will be experienced - but through my observations and instinct, I also believe had competent officials made reasonable decisions over the prior 20 years, some of which would have been super unpopular and costly, the damage from these particular fires would have been less. Just an opinion though...
But as time went on, while taxes rose steadily, services & competency declined - it was noticeable if one was looking. our needs changed with a family (schools/safety). We eventually left, as I did not see much of an ROI on the taxes. btw, i don't mind taxes if I believe the policies are generally sound and officials quasi-competent. For example, the place we moved to next had huge property tax rates (huge) but I did not think much of it, as wow did we have excellent infrastructure.
So i disagree that "stuff happens", and I think I'm entitled to a view since my property in Altadena burned down. This is a failure to learn lessons of the past, a failure to invest in infrastructure, a failure to enforce code that mitigates damages. and maybe that means a whole lot more in taxes, or the realization that structures are forbidden in certain areas. Certainly, market forces through pricing and availability of property insurance will address some of this, and no doubt politicans will scream about corporate greed...but...news flash - insurance companies just use statistics and actuarial tables.
I'm not going to blame a party or person, would be pointless. Any reasonable person can just drive around LA County and see that lack of capital investment. What is ironic is politicians talk lot about climate change, and so we should conclude they believe it to be a clear and present danger - my question of the elected officials - ok, we accept climate change - but what policies and investments have you made to address adverse impacts that will therefore accrue to LA County (more fires, less water, whatever) and the answer is not much. Are they virtue signaling, or are they fearful to deliver the hard news about the cost to address this stuff?
My sense is that the true cost of living in LA County should be a lot higher than we have been paying. But without a substantive tax base (which is declining) we will continue the slow death spiral - unless somehow the Feds will fund most of the deferred maintenance and the new things we need to address adversity from climate change. I mean, $310 billion for high speed rail is cool, but maybe we have higher priorities.
In summary, fires happen and damage will be experienced - but through my observations and instinct, I also believe had competent officials made reasonable decisions over the prior 20 years, some of which would have been super unpopular and costly, the damage from these particular fires would have been less. Just an opinion though...
There's a difference between:
"Why did the hydrants exhaust themselves so quickly in the Pacific Palasades"
and
"Why does Governor New-scum love the Delta Smelt more than people's houses?" (actual quote from a guy on the street in Hollywood)
The first is worth discussing. And the question will probably take us to places we haven't ever considered. The answer likely far less partisan and far more technical than we can ever dream (Rick Caruso is NOT helping). The second question is just dumb. It's a rant, not a question.
I understand everything you've said up to this point. And a lot of Californians feel the way you do.
But, what infrastructure and what code enforcement stops 80 mile per hour winds from blowing flames?
Accepting climate change is part of the problem. Simultaneous to mitigation of effects (and again, what have you got for fire and 80 mile per hour winds?), we need to be actively reducing our contribution. And that's where party politics comes in:
The Democrats in California do this:
California Releases World’s First Plan to Achieve Net Zero Carbon Pollution | Governor of California
Following Governor Newsom’s call for more ambitious climate action, state’s climate plan would create 4 million new jobs, slash greenhouse gas emissions by 85%, and cut oil usage by 94%
The Republicans in Washington do this:
California secures emissions waiver as Trump plans reversal
The Biden administration approved California's authority to enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards, just before Donald Trump takes office vowing to reverse the decision. Alex Nieves and Debra Kahn report for POLITICO. In short: The EPA granted California permission to enforce...
www.dailyclimate.org
California moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the three California University systems move to be carbon zero by 2045 and it's derided as "The Green New Scam".
Seriously?
The opposite of virtue signaling would be "vice signaling". Is that what conservatives do when they vote against wildfire prevention funding and carbon emissions reductions?
"Virtue signaling" is such a horseshit term. Someone accused me of virtue signaling during the pandemic because I wore a mask. They shut right up when I said that my wearing a mask to protect someone else's health was no more virtue signaling than them washing their hands before making someone else a sandwich.
I said I'd be happy to discuss it further over lunch, but only if I got to pick the restaurant.
I'm sorry---you left because California was raising taxes all the time, right?
And again, the odds of that in the next four years are?
The cost overruns on high-speed rail are indefensible. Should have been finished years ago.
And again, skip super unpopular and costly (and never mind that the opposition party would exploit that to the point that people would demand those measures be abandoned like....well, like high-speed rail.
Whaddya got for fire blowing through the air in 80 mph winds? What do you think anyone else has, even if they had Elon Musk money?
Exactly.
- Status