DiabloWags said:

---

From just 1400 firefighters to 15,000+

8 C-130's in place.
Unprecedented.

Preparing for Tuesday's winds.

---

That's what you need when you let fires get out of control.

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

From just 1400 firefighters to 15,000+

8 C-130's in place.
Unprecedented.

Preparing for Tuesday's winds.

---

That's what you need when you let fires get out of control.

---

It's called 'Protect my White House Run 2028'.

1. Call for an investigation
2. Waive environmental review (your party created)
3. Take credit for mutual aid that flows in despite your presense

(When Pelosi talks, do Newsom's lips move?)

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Movielover and bear2034 can't help pointing out lesbians and gays.

---

For some reason, the fire chiefs are all named Kristin.

DiabloWags said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The capacity of that reservoir above Palisades alone is 117 million gallons, so your figure of 3 million gallons is way off.

Had that reservoir been online, they would have had all the water they needed, as well as water pressure in the hydrants on the hills.

---

Your narrative assumes that the water tanks could be re-filled by this Reservoir at the same rate the water is being used by the firefighters.

Got a link that substantiates that claim?
Was the Reservoir's water system designed and engineered with that pathway in mind?

Had the reservoir been operable, water pressure in the Palisades would have lasted longer on Tuesday night, said former DWP general manager Martin Adams, an expert on the city's water system. But only for a time.

"You still would have ended up with serious drops in pressure," Adams said in an interview Thursday. "Would Santa Ynez [Reservoir] have helped? Yes, to some extent. Would it have saved the day? I don't think so."

A DWP official acknowledged that the reservoir's absence likely contributed to some diminished pressure and dry hydrants in upper regions of the Palisades.

However, a spokesperson for the utility said in a statement that DWP was still evaluating the effect of the reservoir being placed offline, and that staffers were conducting a root-cause analysis.

"Our primary focus is to provide water supply throughout the city," the DWP spokesperson said, adding, "The system was never designed for a wildfire scenario that we are experiencing."

Newsom orders probe into why Pacific Palisades reservoir was offline during fires - Los Angeles Times

---

I read this article a few days ago and my general reaction is that: (i) I don't have the expertise to contradict Martin Adams; and (ii) I do question Adams' impartiality, since he worked for the DWP for 40 frickin years (including roles as General Manager and Chief Engineer), so he has a strong incentive to say "DWP did nothing wrong and there was nothing we could do." Color me extremely suspicious of Mr. Adams but open to the possibility he's telling the truth. Ultimately, time will tell as to whether the empty reservoir was a material factor.

I think all of this obscures the larger issues:

• Pacific Palisades and Malibu were/are widely known tinder boxes. Why wasn't all of the fuel cleared, fire roads established, etc.?
• With regard to the "The system was never designed for a wildfire scenario that we are experiencing" my question is why wasn't it? This was a foreseeable scenario. Why was there literally no plan to deal with emergency water requirements and other contingencies? We design/plan for 100 year flood scenarios. Why not fire scenarios?
• Even if the reservoir would have only helped "a little", I think a "little" is better than "nothing."
• We had several days notice of the high wind events. The city seemed unprepared.

There is one fact that clearly establishes the palisades fire was completely foreseeable. Last year, all of the major insurance companies cancelled (technically non-renewed) policies in the palisades and other known high risk areas in Los Angeles. That was in part driven by California's broke insurance regulations, but the cancellations were specifically targeted to the Palisades and other known risky areas.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fires-california-palisades-fire-homeowners-insurance-state-farm-fair-losses/

I have a family member in the insurance industry and they have shared that Corelogic specifically identified the Palisades as a huge fire risk and so advised the insurance companies. Corelogic figured it out. Why didn't the governmental agencies who are the so called "experts"? Or did the governmental agencies know and not take appropriate actions.

Either way, it is ultimately up to the government agencies to plan for these types of fires, not to mention earthquakes and other foreseeable (if rare) events. If we have a 8.0 earthquake, will it be acceptable for the City to tell us the infrastructure was not designed to withstand that? Of course not. We know these events happen and the primary role of government is to plan for and address these events.

Michael Shellenberger may be the best reporter in America. Here’s what he’s learned about the fires in Los Angeles — and about UFOs.

(0:00) How Many Fires Are There? Where Did They Come From?
(3:03) Are Meth Heads Lighting the Fires?
(14:56) DEI Fire Departments
(34:44) Leftists… pic.twitter.com/CeY1e3sWKm

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 14, 2025

Michael Shellenberger lives in Berkeley.

To my point about the failure of government agencies to properly plan, the City controlled DWP failed to take basic steps that all other utilities take to mitigate fire risk.

To be clear, there is no evidence (yet) that the DWP's gross incompetence in failing to de-energize lines caused a fire in this case. But come on - how do they fail at something so elementary and widely known?

Exclusive: The L.A. Department of Water and Power hasn’t developed a plan to proactively shut off parts of its system during windstorms to reduce the risk of sparks from power lines—a measure that every other big California power provider has in place https://t.co/XPfwWTVzMX

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 10, 2025

concordtom said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

I'm against the death penalty, but as someone who lost his house all of our belongings in a fire, I don't think I'd be upset if a couple of looters got shot.

---

Did you just lose it? In this fire?

Either way, I'm terribly sorry!!

---

No, it was almost 40 years ago in our very own fire. Lost everything, but got out with our then 3 year old and infant. Was amazed at the number of idiots who showed up the next day wanting to poke around the ashes. Also at the opportunists (who evidently monitor police scanners) wanting to represent us, for a measly 15% of the insurance settlement. They realize at that moment you just want the whole thing to go away and the prospect of someone else dealing with it is tempting. Fortunately I realized I was in no state to sign anything. Handled the claim myself and was treated fairly by the insurance company. Learned enough to help a couple of friends who went through the Oakland fire,

They've apparently not cut and maintained fire trails / breaks for over 30 years. Imagine the work (backlog), and uproar, if the city / county brought in ten crews daily? But that's what should have happened years ago.

No expert, but eucalyptus trees are highly flammable; put out the RFQs and remove those, too. And bring in some herds of goats, kids and artists will love them.

Back then, and even recently, where was the urgency? Bring out 5, 10 inspectors, and crack the whip for home owners to remove vegetation, weeds , etc, when this drought started.

I read an anecdote recently where a home owner thanked a fireman for saving their home. He replied, "You saved your home, you prepared."

Janisse Quinones is the LADWP CEO who is a newbie, came from PGE, and they doubled the previous salary (she makes 750K).

movielover said:

---

The Texas Freeze was a once in 72 year travesty. At least seven resigned, and at least one person was fired.

---

Hilarious. So when Republicans are in charge, it's just an unprecedented disaster, nothing can be done! When Democrats are in charge, clearly it should have been prevented.

Guess what: the L.A. fires are also unprecedented. I actually agree with the idea that the state and federal government needs to do more about forest management and the like, but the fact that you only blame one side for lack of preparedness shows that it's just a partisan game for you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Texas Freeze was a once in 72 year travesty. At least seven resigned, and at least one person was fired.

---

Hilarious. So when Republicans are in charge, it's just an unprecedented disaster, nothing can be done! When Democrats are in charge, clearly it should have been prevented.

Guess what: the L.A. fires are also unprecedented. I actually agree with the idea that the stated and federal government needs to do more about forest management and the like, but the fact that you only blame one side for lack of preparedness shows that it's just a partisan game for you.

---

I bet you that Newsom's investigation is going to lay the problem at the feet of the water system fire suppression not being sufficiently developed and maintained, which is on local yokels (and not the State or him) and was a bipartisan effort, given Democratic and Republican mayors and city representatives in the cities impacted, and in particular the long time since there was any enhancements In Pacific Palisades. No doubt the report will also blame climate change.

---

I'm sure climate change is also part of the cause here, but ultimately it's not something a state or local government can control. Just gonna have to change things to account for it.

Because as we stopped tried-and-true practices like grazing, cutting fire trails / breaks, controlled burns, etc., fires have multiplied in size and frequency. See my above list.

How California eco-bureaucrats halted a Pacific Palisades fire safety project to save an endangered shrub

Published Jan. 14, 2025

https://nypost.com/2025/01/14/us-news/california-bureaucrats-halted-pacific-palisades-fire-safety-project-to-save-endangered-shrub/

So we know that four progressive moves stopped our State cutting fire breaks / trails:

1. A mouse in PP was allegedly impeded by fire trails
2. The above shrub
3. The Sierra Club allegedly sued to remove fire trails
4. Stopped grazing animals

California spends some $53 billion on climate, more than a lot of countries. I suspect that a good deal of this is on power generation and electrical vehicles; but given that carbon is a global problem and that most emissions are coming from and growing in Asia much faster, this will do nothing to reduce global emissions. Why not spend this money on mitigation- fire suppression, new building codes, water , etc. It seems like conservatives and liberals can both agree on this.