I liked what Adam Carolla said the other day, which was essentially

"You can't just spend your way out of the problem. We pay the highest taxes in the country and have the worst infrastructure, the worst roads. We pay the most per student yet have one of the worst public school systems. We spent billions on homeless and the problem is worse. Our politicians are constantly crying about how they need more money in order to fix something or do some program. What they don't do is prioritize issues very well and instead just use bureaucracy in order to scam the public for more money that they know will have zero oversight and so the projects that are being funded are never finished or kept up because nobody is there to make sure the public's money is being spent with purpose."


He described perfectly my experience in California all the way back in the early 2000s. Cities were constantly crying for more tax money and their priorities were all screwed up, but what made my jaw drop was that the public continually kept giving them more and more money and it was blatantly obvious that those projects never get finished, they just move the money from one place to the next, and so giving them your tax money was like setting it on fire.

There were dozens of calamitous errors here.

No answer yet on why our Woke Fire Department took 55 minutes to get to the blaze - when we knew SoCal was in Extreme Fire conditions, and we knew Pacific Palisades was a tinder box?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I liked what Adam Carolla said the other day, which was essentially

"You can't just spend your way out of the problem. We pay the highest taxes in the country and have the worst infrastructure, the worst roads. We pay the most per student yet have one of the worst public school systems. We spent billions on homeless and the problem is worse. Our politicians are constantly crying about how they need more money in order to fix something or do some program. What they don't do is prioritize issues very well and instead just use bureaucracy in order to scam the public for more money that they know will have zero oversight and so the projects that are being funded are never finished or kept up because nobody is there to make sure the public's money is being spent with purpose."


He described perfectly my experience in California all the way back in the early 2000s. Cities were constantly crying for more tax money and their priorities were all screwed up, but what made my jaw drop was that the public continually kept giving them more and more money and it was blatantly obvious that those projects never get finished, they just move the money from one place to the next, and so giving them your tax money was like setting it on fire.

---

He's absolutely correct. My father talked with me about the various ballot measures every election even before I was old enough to vote. He always voted against every single bond and tax increase because he said California already has among the highest taxes in the nation and rather than pay more, the government should spend the money already collected more wisely.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

And of course, the reservoirs down in Southern California were all EMPTY because "they didn't let the water flow down."

Try again dumba^^

Literally every major reservoir in the State is filled above the historical average of capacity.
Except Millerton at 81% which is just outside of Fresno.

Major Water Supply Reservoirs

---

The most important reservoir - Santa Ynez Reservoir - is at 0%.

Folsom is 16% below historical average.

San Luis (transfer) Reservoir only at 74% of capacity while we dump water into the Pacific.

Critically, despite two excellent years of rain and snowpack well above 100% of average, last year Central Valley farmers were only given 50% of their contract allotment, but they have to pay for 100%.

Worse, 10% was allotted in May or June, while farmers need time to make planting decisions.

Replenishing our aquifers also doesn't appear robust or widespread.

---

Hey Einstein, the San Luis Reservoir at 74% full (103% of normal) is right for mid to late January. You still have 3 months of the rainy season, so you need storage capacity for storms later this winter/spring and for snowmelt from the mountains. You can't save every drop of water in the rivers, nor should you want to. Fresh water flowing to the ocean is the normal order of things. Cutting it off would have significant but unknown consequences to the coastal ocean environment and species.

Here's a link to a CNN story (probably just ensured you would ignore it because the shade of Bill Wattenburg etc...) that explores some of the difficulties of preventing and fighting wildfires in SoCal:

http://CNN.com/2025/01/24/climate/trump-california-fires-raking-forests/index.html

---

This ignores the colossal mismanagement on expanding our water capture capabilities. Anyone remember Proposition 1 in 2014? $7 billion in bonds for improved and expanded water projects? Still in progress it seems - This reservoir on the Sacramento River has been planned for decades. What's taking so long? Please write your representative to demand faster action on these projects!

---

Why should the rest of California and the US have to pay hundreds of billions because Los Angeles allowed unlimited growth to an area without sufficient water to support it?

---

Huh? California voters already approved this bond measure. Besides, this isn't new. We just went through one of the wettest seasons in years and the vast majority of that water wasn't captured. The Pacific Institute published a report last year ranking California ninth among states with the most estimated urban runoff. Just capturing runoff from those areas would be enough to supply 7 million Southern California households every year. Here's the report - Untapped Potential: An Assessment of Urban Stormwater Runoff Potential in the United States

---

Did you actually read the report? It talks about widespread use of rain barrels to capture rain water. It mostly talks about using the captured water on landscaping. I'm fine with that (have done it in the past), but I wouldn't want to have to treat it for drinking or other household uses. I think at best it would have limited usefulness in firefighting and every home would need a pump or two to get it out of the barrels and to your roof or other burning areas.

As for the approved bond measure, fine. I don't live in California anymore and you guys can do whatever you want now.

I'd be interested in seeing how you will capture even 40-50% of the water flowing to the ocean. Put a dam at the mouth of every river reaching the ocean? Why don't we start with the Los Angeles River? Much lower transportation infrastructure costs. It's right at the location of biggest need.

---

As it stands now, around 80% of the rain that falls goes directly back into the ocean. Even partial implementation of these reports ideas would help. Adding even one more collection site/reservoir would make a significant difference. The last reservoir built in California was New Melones Reservoir IN 1979!!!! It's a complete failure by our government officials.

As for fires, no, rain barrels would not have helped. But properly maintained reservoirs would have. As others have pointed out, the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades was completely empty when the fires hit - mismanagement that could have averted some of the tragedy that occurred.

I have zero expertise in the matter and do not purport to know whose opinion is correct. With that said, I found this opinion by a Furd expert:

" David Freyberg, PhD, a hydrologist and water resources specialist at Stanford University, told CBS News in an email that while a full Santa Ynez would have had benefits, it's not clear how much impact it would have had.

"The reservoirs above Pacific Palisades were not designed to support fire-fighting at the scale of [this] fire," he wrote. "Water supply reservoirs are typically designed to cope with house fires, not wildfires."

He added that the situation has made it clear that larger-scale solutions are necessary.

"It is clear that communities vulnerable to wildfire are going to need to think carefully, i.e., rethink, about design criteria for these systems," Freyberg said. "Not just reservoirs, but pipe sizes [and] pressure management."

….and Newsom, not quantifying anything, said this:

"In his letter to DWP, Newsom wrote, "While water supplies from local fire hydrants are not designed to extinguish wildfires over large areas, losing supplies from fire hydrants likely impaired the effort to protect some homes and evacuation corridors."
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/la-fires-santa-ynez-reservoir-pacific-palisades-california/

Looking at everything is isolate. Jez. How about just change a few simple facts

1. Pre-position rigs in Pacific Palusades like their own procedures spell out. Fire trucks there in 10 minutes, maybe 5 minutes or less.

2. Water in their reservoir immediately on the beginning fire.

Really simple. How about a few more?

3. Fire breaks in the PP hills like they had in the 1980s.

4. When there were two great water years - more vegetation - and then dry conditions for 5, 6 months, ROBUST maintanence and ON SITE INSPECTIONS. Send inspectors door to door, MANDATORY clearances and junk / debris/ vegetation removal... if there are elderly involved, marshall resources to immediately help removal of debris.

Out of the Box idea:

5. Someone mentioned it here - mandate every pool owner have a pump and a hose. Set up a heat-sensored sprinkler trigger. If you can prevent 10% of homes from going up, that's big for them, and neighbors.

President Trump today, brief. Notice his urgency? BTW, in this clip I don't see him call her a liar.

🚨#BREAKING: President Donald Trump blasts and calls out Democrat Mayor Karen Bass of lying live on national television.

📌#Palisades l #California

Watch as President Donald Trump confronts Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass live on national television, accusing her of lying about… pic.twitter.com/ALrH1Z0YjW

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) January 25, 2025

Big C said:

---

movielover said:

---

Looking at everything is isolate. Jez. How about just change a few simple facts

1. Pre-position rigs in Pacific Palusades like their own procedures spell out. Fire trucks there in 10 minutes, maybe 5 minutes or less.

2. Water in their reservoir immediately on the beginning fire.

Really simple. How about a few more?

3. Fire breaks in the PP hills like they had in the 1980s.

4. When there were two great water years - more vegetation - and then dry conditions for 5, 6 months, ROBUST maintanence and ON SITE INSPECTIONS. Send inspectors door to door, MANDATORY clearances and junk / debris/ vegetation removal... if there are elderly involved, marshall resources to immediately help removal of debris.

Out of the Box idea:

5. Someone mentioned it here - mandate every pool owner have a pump and a hose. Set up a heat-sensored sprinkler trigger. If you can prevent 10% of homes from going up, that's big for them, and neighbors.

---

. . . also, cut taxes and government spending!

---

Down with the patriarchy.

HKBear97! said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

movielover said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

And of course, the reservoirs down in Southern California were all EMPTY because "they didn't let the water flow down."

Try again dumba^^

Literally every major reservoir in the State is filled above the historical average of capacity.
Except Millerton at 81% which is just outside of Fresno.

Major Water Supply Reservoirs

---

The most important reservoir - Santa Ynez Reservoir - is at 0%.

Folsom is 16% below historical average.

San Luis (transfer) Reservoir only at 74% of capacity while we dump water into the Pacific.

Critically, despite two excellent years of rain and snowpack well above 100% of average, last year Central Valley farmers were only given 50% of their contract allotment, but they have to pay for 100%.

Worse, 10% was allotted in May or June, while farmers need time to make planting decisions.

Replenishing our aquifers also doesn't appear robust or widespread.

---

Hey Einstein, the San Luis Reservoir at 74% full (103% of normal) is right for mid to late January. You still have 3 months of the rainy season, so you need storage capacity for storms later this winter/spring and for snowmelt from the mountains. You can't save every drop of water in the rivers, nor should you want to. Fresh water flowing to the ocean is the normal order of things. Cutting it off would have significant but unknown consequences to the coastal ocean environment and species.

Here's a link to a CNN story (probably just ensured you would ignore it because the shade of Bill Wattenburg etc...) that explores some of the difficulties of preventing and fighting wildfires in SoCal:

http://CNN.com/2025/01/24/climate/trump-california-fires-raking-forests/index.html

---

This ignores the colossal mismanagement on expanding our water capture capabilities. Anyone remember Proposition 1 in 2014? $7 billion in bonds for improved and expanded water projects? Still in progress it seems - This reservoir on the Sacramento River has been planned for decades. What's taking so long? Please write your representative to demand faster action on these projects!

---

Why should the rest of California and the US have to pay hundreds of billions because Los Angeles allowed unlimited growth to an area without sufficient water to support it?

---

Huh? California voters already approved this bond measure. Besides, this isn't new. We just went through one of the wettest seasons in years and the vast majority of that water wasn't captured. The Pacific Institute published a report last year ranking California ninth among states with the most estimated urban runoff. Just capturing runoff from those areas would be enough to supply 7 million Southern California households every year. Here's the report - Untapped Potential: An Assessment of Urban Stormwater Runoff Potential in the United States

---

Did you actually read the report? It talks about widespread use of rain barrels to capture rain water. It mostly talks about using the captured water on landscaping. I'm fine with that (have done it in the past), but I wouldn't want to have to treat it for drinking or other household uses. I think at best it would have limited usefulness in firefighting and every home would need a pump or two to get it out of the barrels and to your roof or other burning areas.

As for the approved bond measure, fine. I don't live in California anymore and you guys can do whatever you want now.

I'd be interested in seeing how you will capture even 40-50% of the water flowing to the ocean. Put a dam at the mouth of every river reaching the ocean? Why don't we start with the Los Angeles River? Much lower transportation infrastructure costs. It's right at the location of biggest need.

---

As it stands now, around 80% of the rain that falls goes directly back into the ocean. Even partial implementation of these reports ideas would help. Adding even one more collection site/reservoir would make a significant difference. The last reservoir built in California was New Melones Reservoir IN 1979!!!! It's a complete failure by our government officials.

As for fires, no, rain barrels would not have helped. But properly maintained reservoirs would have. As others have pointed out, the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades was completely empty when the fires hit - mismanagement that could have averted some of the tragedy that occurred.

---

Your 80% figure is misleading

50% of water is environmental- wild and.scenic, wetlands, etc. This is all Northern California
40% of water use is agricultural
10% is urban

Agriculture is about 2% of California's GDP. No reason this has to continue especially since it is largely export crops- almonds. We can import water in produce not export it. Since ag is largely Trump's constituency , I suspect "shutting the spigot" isn't in the cards

https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf

Fox News: 'We can't wait': Issa fights back against 'green tape' regulations impacting firefighters

The legislation is named the 'Green Tape Elimination Act'

"Issa, who represents California's 48th Congressional District, is putting forward the Green Tape Elimination Act which would exempt hazardous fuel reduction activities on federal lands from federal regulations for a decade.

"Eliminating those regulatory burdens, Issa says, will allow firefighters to clear brush, cut shrubs, prescribe fires, along with other fire prevention activities without being hindered by six major federal environmental regulations.

"Those regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Air Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Migratory Bird Conservation Act...."

"...Chuck Devore, a former member of the California State Assembly and the chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told FOX Business in a recent interview that federal and state rules have hampered wildfire mitigation efforts, resulting in larger fuel loads that drive more intense wildfires." "

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/we-cant-wait-issa-fights-back-against-green-tape-regulations-impacting-firefighters

Gavin Newsom disbanded a highly trained team of certified VOLUNTEER firefighters in early 2024 a move that left his National Guard incapable of sending a complete firefighting force to Los Angeles until 10 days after the fires broke out.

Outtakes:

"The California State Guard is an all-volunteer militia force that reports directly to Newsom, its commander in chief.

"In 2020, the State Guard launched Team Blaze. It was an on-call strike force staffed entirely with certified volunteer firefighters, all at virtually no cost to the state.

"Team Blaze was effective. It battled the 2021 Dixie Fire, the largest single-source wildfire in California state history. The team also performed search-and-rescue missions during that fire...."

"...But in 2023, the Newsom administration barred Team Blaze from receiving free firefighting equipment from its charitable benefactor.

"You read that right: the Newsom administration in 2023 deemed it illegal for an outside charity to provide free firefighting equipment to the certified volunteer firefighters under Newsom's command...."

"In 2024, the Newsom administration shut down Team Blaze...."

"And when the Newsom admin disbanded Team Blaze, the California National Guard was left with no standing force of Type II handcrews...."

"As Los Angeles burned, the California National Guard sent 200 soldiers to Camp Robertssituated 220 miles north of the burning cityto be trained how to perform the duties of a Type II handcrew.

"Those 200 soldiers didn't arrive in Los Angeles until Jan. 17 some 10 days after the fires broke out....

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1882884048328294848.html

Question: Why don't we gave 1,000 trained volunteers in Northern Cal, and 1,000 in Southern Cal?

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Looks like it's about states' rights until it's a state we don't like.

---

California might turn red after the next four years and when Voter ID is required.

---

California remains blue because high-income educated people have shifted blue. Voter ID laws won't change that.

Regardless, it's insane to condition disaster aid on something like this. Unless you want the next Democratic president to require that the next red state hit with a hurricane has to remove its gerrymander.

---

Just crazy to start making disaster relief (in our own country!) contingent on jumping through some political hoops.

Mr. President, maybe you think the US would be better off without California? That would be "interesting"... for California.

---

I'm liking California to Denmark for Greenland and cash

With Kristen, Kristen and Kristen transferring to the Nuuk, Greenland fire department.

bearister said:

---

I have zero expertise in the matter and do not purport to know whose opinion is correct. With that said, I found this opinion by a Furd expert:

" David Freyberg, PhD, a hydrologist and water resources specialist at Stanford University, told CBS News in an email that while a full Santa Ynez would have had benefits, it's not clear how much impact it would have had.

"The reservoirs above Pacific Palisades were not designed to support fire-fighting at the scale of [this] fire," he wrote. "Water supply reservoirs are typically designed to cope with house fires, not wildfires."

He added that the situation has made it clear that larger-scale solutions are necessary.

"It is clear that communities vulnerable to wildfire are going to need to think carefully, i.e., rethink, about design criteria for these systems," Freyberg said. "Not just reservoirs, but pipe sizes [and] pressure management."

….and Newsom, not quantifying anything, said this:

"In his letter to DWP, Newsom wrote, "While water supplies from local fire hydrants are not designed to extinguish wildfires over large areas, losing supplies from fire hydrants likely impaired the effort to protect some homes and evacuation corridors."
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/la-fires-santa-ynez-reservoir-pacific-palisades-california/

---

You know, this finally seems to be on point. The reservoir in Stone Canyon, which supports Bel Air and its surrounds, serves an area which already has good water pressure, unlike the Palisades. Stone Canyon has 3 plus Billion gallons of water, which last time I looked was more water than had been used to fight the Palisades fire so far. The big difference is Stone Canyon was built many decades ago before public spending was rerouted to different priorities. But had the fire been on the other side of the 405, the result would have been far less damage would have been sustained.

Unfortunately, journalists have focused on the lack of the reservoir with a 117 million gallon capacity which the LA County fire chief said would have only provided maybe a hour more of water pressure (which admttedly could have saved some homes). The LA Times now is rife with articles with LA officials being told that the LA City west of the 405 was grossly insufficient, and something closer to the Stone Canyon Reservoir was needed.

Officials were warned of failing water system before ...Los Angeles Timeshttps://www.latimes.com california story malibu-w...

While the academic quoted is correct the reservoirs in place were designed to fight small fires, and he is incompetently wrong (or being quoted out of context) about the current water system in SoCal. That system generally is designed to accommodate water suppression for the major wild fires that Los Angles and Orange Counties have encountered over many decades. I have both lived through those fires and personally observed fire suppressant efforts on my family homes, and worked for either as real estate counsel or CFO of the largest water purveyors down here. There exists many reservoirs and underground storage facilities the size of Stone Canyon on the wholesale and retail level. Either the professor was taken out of context, or he simply doesn't understand the infrastructure that exists in other populated areas of the City and LA County outside the Palisades.

The agonizing other problem is that journalists are focused on the tiny 117 million gallon facility because they can show pictures of the empty facility and because LA DWP officials blatantly lied abut the facility being closed temporarily for maintenance. The problem was the entire system in the Palisades had been ignored for many decades as population grew exponentially.

Newsom seems to have this right if you talk with the incidence fire chiefs. When the priority shifted from fighting the fire to saving lives (which is the protocol when the initial crew can't control the fire), the evacuation corridors failed and the ground fire resources had to focus on removing people rather than the fire. This allowed the fire to become out of control for hours. This meant, hours later, when the ground fire resources finally shifted to protecting structure, the fire had to be fought too many fronts without the help of air resources. With insufficient water pressure from the local water system, the fight only lated a few hours. This meant there was no water being retrieved from water mains (plenty of water, but no pressure to get the water through the system to the hydrant), and the ground resources were unable to fight the advancing fire without the water.