Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dmoy 931 days ago
The US West Coast lags way behind almost the entire rest of the US w.r.t using controlled burns to limit wildfire danger.

California intentionally burns like only half of the area as Minnesota, despite being like twice as big.

Arkansas, GA, SC, etc all burn like 5-10x what CA does, for prevention purposes.

Growing up outside of the West and moving to the West later, I was shocked how little controlled burns there are here.

4 comments

My understanding is that California air pollution regulations make it incredibly difficult to burn. The fact that, if you don't do a controlled burn it will result in an much larger uncontrolled burn later is not taken into account by the regulations.
It's a bit more complicated than that: the California Air Resources Board sets statewide rules but the permitting for prescribed burns and the final responsibility for air quality lies with the 35 air districts. They already have the power to ignore many air quality regulations when granting permits but their politics are all over the place and there's tons of locally driven NIMBYism that's more influential than it would be at the state level. In some districts prescribed burns are a lot easier than in others.

CARB has been researching the issue of prescribed burns for decades and ever since the mid to late 2010s is completely on board, but the air districts are slower to follow. On top of that, the difference in land management priorities between the National Forest Service, BLM, and the State of California complicates everything. One of the best arguments for the Federal government divesting of its land in the west is to allow the states to better manage their own resources (states' rights comes full circle).

after the 2018 season, Gov Newsom did oversee a series of comprehensive settlements between major parties regarding cost, authority and procedures. Secondly the long-standing CalFIRE lead was terminated.
Yup - sooner or later mother nature wins. And those larger burns? Instead of being beneficial they actually kill the trees. It's what happened to Yosemite in the 2000's and killed thousands of acres of trees.
You would do well to remember father time is the only one that always wins
> Arkansas, GA, SC, etc all burn like 5-10x what CA does, for prevention purposes.

I live in ATL and just drove back home from being up north for thanksgiving, drove through a huge prescribed burn on the way a few days ago.

People like to blame various west coast states for this, but do note it's mostly federal land, managed by federal employees. East coasters tend to not comprehend how much federal land there is in the southwest/west; watching tourists is fun.
Yea I'm not blaming the state governments because I don't know who's responsible for burns, just pointing out that the end result is the west coast is a tinderbox relative to the rest of the country
> California intentionally burns like only half of the area as Minnesota, despite being like twice as big.

Well the wildfire arsonists take care of the other half.

(I'm serious, not joking. You don't need to do a controlled burn if the wildfire already did one for you.)

> You don't need to do a controlled burn if the wildfire already did one for you.

That seems to get cause and effect backwards. Had California done more controlled burns, then they wouldn't have had nearly as many disastrous wildfires.

California would still have lots of disastrous wildfires regardless of controlled burns, because the chaparral ecosystem is spark-limited, not fuel-limited. Unless you limit your comments to forest ecosystems, which is only half the story, and very little of the urban-wildland interface.
Most of the recent wildfires have been due to arson.
Yet the rapid spread and destruction is often from build up of undergrowth.