Trump directs US government to override California water policies if necessary (Page 2/2)
blackrams JAN 27, 11:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

The reservoirs were full; I've cited that. The pumps were never designed to fight this level of fire within the city. Call it oversight, call it ignorance, call it outright stupidity...I probably won't disagree on that. I haven't seen anything from insurance companies complaining about the diameter of LA's water pipe infrastructure, but I'm not paying attention to everything. I have no doubt that you don't understand why more homes weren't saved, but that's largely because (unless I'm mistaken) you are almost completely ignorant on what makes good strategy for fighting a wildfire within a metropolitan area.*

*Edit to add: I don't mean this as an insult. I'd put myself and every other member of this forum in the same category.




I won't react to your post as an insult but, those in positions such as leaders for fire, water, city and state security were warned by insurance companies about the risk of fire due to the overgrowth allowed and apparently promoted by the "Greenies and Tree huggers". The insurance companies requested to increase their premiums for fire protection and were denied. That's why there are so many uninsured homes. Insurance companies started bailing out. I don't know (as you suggest) if the insurance companies evaluated the water supply issues (although, I would think they would), it's part of their business risk evaluation) but, what I am sure of is those mentioned above are responsible for some very bad planning and leadership. What I do know is that every time I've moved, the insurance company wanted to know where the nearest hydrant was in relationship to my home and where the nearest station was located. Fire Services are rated on their abilities and performance capability. I don't know if they investigated the water supply.

If that isn't evident to every member of this forum, it most surely is to those who lost their homes.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-27-2025).]

cliffw JAN 28, 11:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
That reminds me! Have you had a chance to check out 'The Foundations of Morality' yet?



I missed that question. Yes Preface 1 and Preface 2, Forward, and 1/2 of the Introductory (Chapter One).

I thought it was you who sent it to me. I want to personally thank you. I will read it all, as I can.
NewDustin JAN 28, 11:22 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


I won't react to your post as an insult but, those in positions such as leaders for fire, water, city and state security were warned by insurance companies about the risk of fire due to the overgrowth allowed and apparently promoted by the "Greenies and Tree huggers". The insurance companies requested to increase their premiums for fire protection and were denied. That's why there are so many uninsured homes. Insurance companies started bailing out. I don't know (as you suggest) if the insurance companies evaluated the water supply issues (although, I would think they would), it's part of their business risk evaluation) but, what I am sure of is those mentioned above are responsible for some very bad planning and leadership. What I do know is that every time I've moved, the insurance company wanted to know where the nearest hydrant was in relationship to my home and where the nearest station was located. Fire Services are rated on their abilities and performance capability. I don't know if they investigated the water supply.

If that isn't evident to every member of this forum, it most surely is to those who lost their homes.

Rams



I think you are generalizing CA politics based on it being a "liberal" state.

I can't find anywhere that insurers were warning about clearing brush. The insurers wanted to raise rates and CA said "no" (something I disagree with), but overgrowth played very little role in the LA fire. I can find quotes from insurance companies stating that rising prices in the state make it impossible to insure without increased premiums...but nothing about overgrowth in LA county. You might be referring to environmental groups opposing controlled burns or biomass harvesting (I disagree with them here too), but those are almost exclusively for fire management in the Sierras and mountainous wooded areas...they have nothing to do with LA or its fires. LA actually has pretty explicit brush clearing requirements for home owners, though having been to LA I would question enforcement there.

I've posted this before in this thread, but LA has an absurd claim to CA's water: More than the Bay Area, more than San Diego, more than the Central Valley, more than Sacramento. You can check their reservoir levels online, they're all at historically high levels and have been since before the fires. You can be sure the insurance companies audited the water levels as well, and we wouldn't have to be imagining words they didn't say at this point if they'd found an issue.
NewDustin JAN 28, 11:25 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I missed that question. Yes Preface 1 and Preface 2, Forward, and 1/2 of the Introductory (Chapter One).

I thought it was you who sent it to me. I want to personally thank you. I will read it all, as I can.


That means a lot to me! Given the conversations we've had I believe we share a lot of underlying moral principals. It gets a little dense, and I actually read it for the first time with a Libertarian discussion group when I was in my early 20s. It helped me understand a lot of what I feel about freedom and liberty. Let me know if you ever want to talk about it!
cliffw JAN 28, 11:44 AM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
They didn't save any money by not using sea water. It would have cost more, destroyed their equipment, taken longer, and been worse to use than the plentiful water they had ready access to. Did you see the link I posted about all of the reservoirs being overfull? Why would you fly further to the ocean to engage in a riskier maneuver to get less effective water?

You wouldn't have saved lives using salt water. You wouldn't have saved more homes, or plants or anything. You would have had more damage, more danger, and a worse outcome. Did you watch what Bill Burr had to say?



You may have missed where I said drilling rigs use brine water a lot of time, which is at a higher salt concentration than sea water. Pumped with very expensive pumps at pressures up to 4,000 psi. The amount of gallons per minute is also enormous. I can not think of one salt water degradation to the equipment, the metal mud tanks, or the drill pipe. The sea water is right next to the fires. How could it take longer ?

The link you are referring to ? With this ?

quote

In a severe drought, Los Angeles County or the city might request to draw water from the Kern Water Bank. However, all of the reservoirs the city and county rely on in Southern California are currently at or above historical averages, according to the California Department of Water Resources.



I did not see what Bill Burr said, I don't know who is is.