Trump opens the valve - How much damage has he done?

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

MSN

In short. He ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to release large amounts of water with almost no warning.

Done after the Eaton and Palisades fires are 100% contained. Into rivers that do not go to Los Angeles.

But it gets better. This is water carefully managed so farmers will have it for their crops this coming summer. It is more likely that the unplanned release will cause damage than it doing any good for anyone.

Yes, Trump likes to be a thorn to blue States. But I have a feeling, Trump hosing down a part of CA. Will be nothing compared to the damage, that Trump will leave America. Especially the people, that voted for him.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

That's what happens in a "woke" state like California when you let so many people use the wrong bathrooms.

What the excuse , when it happened to North Carolina and other red States, that get blasted with hurricane's and other natural disasters?

 

[Der Alte]

MSN

In short. He ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to release large amounts of water with almost no warning.

Done after the Eaton and Palisades fires are 100% contained. Into rivers that do not go to Los Angeles.

But it gets better. This is water carefully managed so farmers will have it for their crops this coming summer. It is more likely that the unplanned release will cause damage than it doing any good for anyone.

I feel certain that he conferred with some people knowledgeable in that area before acting. But of course those who are already predisposed to oppose anything/everything Trump does or says will find fault.

 

[keith99]

I feel certain that he conferred with some people knowledgeable in that area before acting. But of course those who are already predisposed to oppose anything/everything Trump does or says will find fault.

It seems those downstream were caught by surprise and had to scramble to prevent flooding.

If Trump conferred with anyone it seems he did not listen to what they said. That or they had already learned not to tell 'the leader' anything he does not want to hear,

 

[RileyG]

This will bring own egg prices, right?

Maybe we should raise our own chickens.

 

[Der Alte]

It seems those downstream were caught by surprise and had to scramble to prevent flooding.

If Trump conferred with anyone it seems he did not listen to what they said. That or they had already learned not to tell 'the leader' anything he does not want to hear,

I wonder why nobody with any kind of knowledge of this situation didn't say something like "Mr. President that might not be a good idea because....."

 

[keith99]

I wonder why nobody with any kind of knowledge of this situation didn't say something like "Mr. President that might not be a good idea because....."

One only has to look at how badly Trump reacts when being told no to know the answer to that question.

And honestly this is far from the worst he has done since he became president. And I have to wonder how many people would have known offhand about the potential damages and the negative impact it is still apt to have on farmers. Oh, any decent administrator should have known that there was possible issues. But who goes up against 'The Leader' without firm knowledge. And the speed with which Trump did this pretty much precluded anyone close to him getting that firm knowledge.

 

[Der Alte]

One only has to look at how badly Trump reacts when being told no to know the answer to that question.

And honestly this is far from the worst he has done since he became president. And I have to wonder how many people would have known offhand about the potential damages and the negative impact it is still apt to have on farmers. Oh, any decent administrator should have known that there was possible issues. But who goes up against 'The Leader' without firm knowledge. And the speed with which Trump did this pretty much precluded anyone close to him getting that firm knowledge.

Yeah right. Making a suggestion is not telling him no. Seems to me no matter what Trump does or says you find something wrong with it.

 

[keith99]

Yeah right. Making a suggestion is not telling him no. Seems to me no matter what Trump does or says you find something wrong with it.

He would see it as questioning his decision.

 

[7thKeeper]

I wonder why nobody with any kind of knowledge of this situation didn't say something like "Mr. President that might not be a good idea because....."

How do you know that someone didn't?

 

[RDKirk]

Ages ago I worked for a water district in an area that I can tell you is now fairly petrified by the prospect of wildfire. Municipal water systems were never designed so every hydrant for miles around could be opened and provide pressure at the same time. The idea was just to have a hydrant available every few hundred feet for a house fire here. Or there. Not houses threatened or burning all around for miles at the same time.

Although, there is also the analogy of "rats leaving a sinking ship." Sometimes the first evidence that the ship is sinking its that the rats are leaving (or, more likely, leaving their lower bilge nests and being seen on the upper decks).

As I've said before, insurance companies fleeing the state--which the state years ago knew was coming, nothing "sudden" about it--should have been a overall wake-up call to the state government of an overall endemic problem. Insurance companies do not want to stop doing business; the reason they had been threatening to leave for years and then finally began leaving is because their research clearly showed that a massive fire disaster was imminent.

The state just said, "Aw, everyone knows insurance companies are just greedy," for years even though they were shown the facts.

This situation was not caused by any single problem but a host of problems, all of which the state knew about and none of which the state did anything about.

If the state continues its ""Aw, everyone knows insurance companies are just greedy" policy and doesn't propose rebuilding with effective corrective measures established into the rebuilding, they're not going to get the insurance companies to go along...and the rebuilding isn't going to happen without insurance.

 

[durangodawood]

Although, there is also the analogy of "rats leaving a sinking ship." Sometimes the first evidence that the ship is sinking its that the rats are leaving (or, more likely, leaving their lower bilge nests and being seen on the upper decks).

As I've said before, insurance companies fleeing the state--which the state years ago knew was coming, nothing "sudden" about it--should have been a overall wake-up call to the state government of an overall endemic problem. Insurance companies do not want to stop doing business; the reason they had been threatening to leave for years and then finally began leaving is because their research clearly showed that a massive fire disaster was imminent.

The state just said, "Aw, everyone knows insurance companies are just greedy," for years even though they were shown the facts.

This situation was not caused by any single problem but a host of problems, all of which the state knew about and none of which the state did anything about.

If the state continues its ""Aw, everyone knows insurance companies are just greedy" policy and doesn't propose rebuilding with effective corrective measures established into the rebuilding, they're not going to get the insurance companies to go along...and the rebuilding isn't going to happen without insurance.

Re the specific post youre replying to: I dont think there's any way for a state or municipality to make an in place water system to deliver fire fighting pressure to serve the number of house incidents that could be involved in urban or even small town wildfires.

Bigger picture, I do think this notion of urban wildfire is actually pretty new. Not unprecedented, for sure. Recall Oakland hills in '91. But we have not seen a rash of these things until the last decade really. And sure, "woke climate change true believers" knew this was coming. But it really does take a hard push for this to wake up govt, aside from so called radical pro-actives.

And its not like CA is averse to legislating for natural disasters. The construction codes for seismic are very strict there, as well as other measures. But there's always this balance between what the situation needs and what existing homeowners can afford. Fire depts in CA have been going around and requiring this and that sort of vegetation removed from peoples yards. 2 huge pine trees in my folks' case. I think they spent like $15k on that.

 

[RDKirk]

Re the specific post youre replying to: I dont think there's any way for a state or municipality to make an in place water system to deliver fire fighting pressure to serve the number of house incidents that could be involved in urban or even small town wildfires.

Bigger picture, I do think this notion of urban wildfire is actually pretty new. Not unprecedented, for sure. Recall Oakland hills in '91. But we have not seen a rash of these things until the last decade really. And sure, "woke climate change true believers" knew this was coming. But it really does take a hard push for this to wake up govt, aside from so called radical pro-actives.

And its not like CA is averse to legislating for natural disasters. The construction codes for seismic are very strict there, as well as other measures. But there's always this balance between what the situation needs and what existing homeowners can afford. Fire depts in CA have been going around and requiring this and that sort of vegetation removed from peoples yards. 2 huge pine trees in my folks' case. I think they spent like $15k on that.

As I said: "This situation was not caused by any single problem but a host of problems, all of which the state knew about and none of which the state did anything about."

Insurance companies are not "woke climate change true believers." When they began leaving California, they were leaving billions of dollars on the table because they predicted they would very soon lose many billions more. That's not "radical pro-actives." California was warned by the experts of disaster that they were literally a disaster waiting to happen, and the wait would not be long. California was playing "Don't look up."

 

[durangodawood]

As I said: "This situation was not caused by any single problem but a host of problems, all of which the state knew about and none of which the state did anything about."

Insurance companies are not "woke climate change true believers." When they began leaving California, they were leaving billions of dollars on the table because they predicted they would very soon lose many billions more. That's not "radical pro-actives." California was warned by the experts of disaster that they were literally a disaster waiting to happen, and the wait would not be long. California was playing "Don't look up."

Seems to be the nature of govt in the USA. If there's a model for consistently pro active govt here, I'd like to know about it.

Other countries - where people arent petrified of the notion of govt action - are a different story.

 

[Stephen3141]

(A lot of this discussion, is about points that are irrelevant to the massive
nature of the neighborhood fires.

As I mentioned, from articles, the recent neighborhood fires in L.A.
had unique problems...

1 Old, winding roads, into some of the "scenic" neighborhoods, could not
evan allow fire trucks to drive into the neighborhoods.

2 Although wild fires brought the fire to inhabitted neighborhoods, the
fire codes in L.A. allowed very closely spaced houses, made of burnable
materials. It was not brush, that made these fires spread, but the burning
houses themselves, that spread the fires.

3. The high winds of 70-100 mph, meant that air tankers could not fly.
And without these, it was impossible for fire trucks to stop the fires.

4 The "density" of fire equipment in the burning neighborhoods, was
meant for individual house fires, not for entire rows of houses burning.
These latest fires are something quite new.

5 Even if you could have filled the neighborhood street solid with fire trucks,
they could not have stopped the fires, because of the high winds.

6 The water pipes were meant to service individual house fires. They were
not designed to handle the situation of entire neighborhoods going up in
fire.

Explanations that appeal to not enough fire trucks, or not enough water,
or too much wild brush, do not deal with the real causes of the huge
neighborhood fires. A lot of these posts, are irrelevant, to the L.A. fires.)