It’s summer, so there are wildfires. There are wildfires, so people are debating what to do about them. Should the Forest Service cut more trees? Should counties regulate rural land development? Should Congress give the Forest Service and Department of the Interior more money for fire suppression?
The New York Times asked seven experts to address these issues in 400 words or less. Some focus on regulation; others on public land management; still others on fire suppression and fuel treatments.
Some of the reasons are impotence and the others are not going learningworksca.org levitra on line to have any kind of disturbance. A long lasting erection can be achieved by giving sexual satisfaction with maximum price tadalafil tablets. viagra are available in 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg. Some men do not receive viagra 50mg no prescription any benefit from external massage. Pepe Jeans, known for its high quality and effective key ingredient i.e. sildenafil citrate. cheapest cialis discover this link
Naturally, the Antiplanner opposes regulation of private landowners, saying that the risks they take are between them and their insurance companies. Beyond that, I suggest that the real problem is that the federal agencies have too much money, leading people to become overly reliant on suppression efforts and uninterested in taking the steps they need to protect their properties.
Randal, this is an area that you know much better than I, but it seems to me that fire is a natural part of the ecosystem in many (most?) of the federally-owned lands that have burned over the past 20 to 30 years. At least in the West (not so sure this is the case in the East, where we generally get more summertime rainfall).
So fire suppression efforts which lead to a build-up of fuel materials would seem to be a bad idea.
I agree that state and local governments should not be banning development on private land just because it happens to adjoin federal property of some sort (be it a national park, national forest or other federal reservation). If “doctors and lawyers” want to live there, so what? If such people can get fire insurance, then I don’t see any reason for concern.
But I draw one parallel between the fires and the massive power outages as a result of the massive derecheo system of thunderstorms at the end of June 2012 that did damage from Illinois all the way to Maryland and Virginia (our power was out for about 5 days thanks to damage caused by relatively small trees falling on the three-phase 13,000 volt distribution line that serves our neighborhood).
Mindless opposition to tree removal (either because the trees are ready to be harvested, as in the National Forests or because the trees pose a threat to power transmission and distribution lines) must not find a sympathetic audience with elected officials or in the judicial system (with exceptions – maybe – for true old growth forests and other extraordinary wooded areas like Muir Woods in California).
Now I realize full well that the economics of running the Forest Service do not make a lot of sense (from reading your book), but shouldn’t we be deferring to people with education in this area (e.g. foresters and arborists) in deciding to keep or fell trees?
Not the local or national Sierra Club and its allies?
But I draw one parallel between the fires and the massive power outages as a result of the massive [derecho] system of thunderstorms at the end of June 2012 that did damage from Illinois all the way to Maryland and Virginia (our power was out for about 5 days thanks to damage caused by relatively small trees falling on the three-phase 13,000 volt distribution line that serves our neighborhood).
Mindless opposition to tree removal (either because the trees are ready to be harvested, as in the National Forests or because the trees pose a threat to power transmission and distribution lines) must not find a sympathetic audience with elected officials or in the judicial system (with exceptions – maybe – for true old growth forests and other extraordinary wooded areas like Muir Woods in California).
True dat.
First, we have family on a farm in southern Ohio whose power was out for 9 days and during a heat wave, and I’m taking some time during a conference back there to go down and help out, so my sympathies. With more energy in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, this sort of thing will likely become more common in the future. We need to change our electricity delivery system.
Next, I’m using a picture in a presentation (that our buddies will see) about the tree-storm-power issue back there from that storm (which knocked out power to more people than Katrina). It is a picture of a large tree on private property that was improperly cared for and had some roots cut and others compacted, and it fell across delivery lines onto a house. It is possible that if the tree hadn’t been mistreated it would have withstood the wind. A lot of trees went down, sure, but many trees in cities are mistreated and misplanted, which leads to these sorts of problems.
Last, wrt ‘mindless opposition’, the FERC and NERC have much stricter rules regarding tree-line clearance after the big 2003 outage in the US northeast and SE Canada. There can be opposition, but the power companies have much more…er…power to remove potential hazard. I have several buddies who work for private firms that do this clearance work and there is little wiggle room for the landowner intruding into the easement after this rule change. Hope this addresses your concerns.
DS
First, we have family on a farm in southern Ohio whose power was out for 9 days and during a heat wave, and I’m taking some time during a conference back there to go down and help out, so my sympathies. With more energy in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, this sort of thing will likely become more common in the future. We need to change our electricity delivery system.
Actually, we need to change the fuel used to generate electricity (not all of it, but some of it) from coal to nuclear.
Last, wrt ‘mindless opposition’, the FERC and NERC have much stricter rules regarding tree-line clearance after the big 2003 outage in the US northeast and SE Canada. There can be opposition, but the power companies have much more…er…power to remove potential hazard. I have several buddies who work for private firms that do this clearance work and there is little wiggle room for the landowner intruding into the easement after this rule change. Hope this addresses your concerns.
I don’t think the FERC and NERC rules help with removing tree hazards near distribution lines (as opposed to transmission lines). I am not aware of even one transmission line that failed because of the derecho system of storms in the Midwest and East.
In my part of the world, some people call their local or state or even federal elected officials if a crew shows up to prune away tree limbs and trees that might pose a threat to distribution lines.
The tree lovers can call, but if a tree needs trimming or removal, it should be up to the utility – not elected officials (unless the owner of the tree wants to pay to underground the line(s) in question).
Actually, we need to change the fuel used to generate electricity (not all of it, but some of it) from coal to nuclear.
Its true we need to decarbonize, and we also need to change our aging grid, which increasingly can’t handle the demands we put on it, including the variable loads from renewables.
I don’t think the FERC and NERC rules help with removing tree hazards near distribution lines (as opposed to transmission lines).
The rules directly affect transmission lines, not distribution. But once a federal standard is in place, what happens is the local regulatory commissions follow. I’m sure there are plenty of localities that cave to the weeping grandma who doesn’t want her incorrectly-planted tree cut because her precious Buttons is buried underneath it.
I recall when I lived in CA that PG&E were on a profit tear and eliminated something like 40% of its tree trimming. Surprise, surprise after a few well-publicized outages the PUC slapped some fines and made them do their jobs. Haven’t followed whether they slacked off again, but it wouldn’t surprise me, as many utility business models are flawed in this regard.
DS
“…the real problem is that the federal agencies have too much money, leading people to become overly reliant on suppression efforts…”
In the six years from 1999 to 2005, federal funding for fire nearly tripled. The money dumped into fire undoubtedly leads to price inflation in that industry. Not sure what psychological effects it has on people living in ponderosa pine forests or the WUI.
The biggest problems with private land owners treating their own lands is economic; crowding in the federal fire monopoly leads to inflated prices, even in the few “private” contract fire companies.
I suggest that the real problem is that the federal agencies [are] leading people to become overly reliant on suppression efforts and uninterested in taking the steps they need to protect their properties.
Randal and I share similar views on this issue (please, no hate mail to Randal).
There was an interesting piece in the Denver Post recently about our cultural mindset (please, no hate mail to the Denver Post about priveleging the collective over the individual) about wildland fire – we use war metaphors in our discourse about fire, which makes us talk about battling and repelling, rather than adapting and accepting.
This sort of dialogue and framing may be a big part of the reason why our fire budgets are swelling at the expense of other needs on our wildlands. The trouble is that we have hundreds of thousands of second homes already in the WUI with an expectation of protection. Second homes means people with money and influence over politicians.
Going to take a long time to change this mindset, prabably as long as it is going to take to reverse a century of fire suppression in forests that have a fire return interval less than the period of fire suppression (and those forests with MPB outbreaks, esp lodgepole, which tends to go up in stand-clearing fires).
DS
The trouble is that we have hundreds of thousands of second homes already in the WUI with an expectation of protection. Second homes means people with money and influence over politicians.
In theory, that should not matter – if people can get fire insurance, then if that second home burns, insurance will cover (most of) the loss.
That same class of citizens also build second homes on the Outer Banks of North Carolina and in other places vulnerable to storm damage. A call to a member of Congress is not (at least not yet) going to prevent a Hugo-type storm from destroying lots of property near the Atlantic Coast.
Going to take a long time to change this mindset, prabably as long as it is going to take to reverse a century of fire suppression in forests that have a fire return interval less than the period of fire suppression (and those forests with MPB outbreaks, esp lodgepole, which tends to go up in stand-clearing fires).
Here’s a place where the land use planning (and development approval) process can do some good. If someone wants to build a McMansion Jr. in a fire-prone area (which should be designated in a way similar to the FEMA flood plain maps), then the prospective McMansion (or McCabin) builder should be required to sign a document at settlement time (which gets recorded in the county land records) acknowledging that they are aware of the fire hazard, and that they must maintain their property to prevent encroachment by fire, and even if they do, they may not get an adequate and timely emergency response from the local fire suppression agencies in the event of a large forest fire or wildfire.
Screw that I only need five words….”Only you can prevent wildfires”.
Too bad Smokey forgot to mention that about three out of four wildfires are started by lightning…
Here is an Australian angle, from “Quadrant”; the conservative intellectual magazine:
Ray Evans: The Lessons of Black Saturday
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/7-8/the-lessons-of-black-saturday