Reservoir was built to save Pacific Palisades. It was empty when the flames came
latimes.com
latimes.com
https://sfpublicworks.org/project/emergency-firefighting-wat...
https://waterpowersewer.wordpress.com/2019/07/01/a-look-back...
According to this video some areas in Malibu have burned 9 times in the past 90 years
> although it’s unclear whether the reservoir would have made a meaningful difference in firefighters’ ability to combat the flames. Water systems experts said that with extreme Santa Ana winds that prevented the use of planes and helicopters, the Palisades fire was impossible to control, and that municipal water systems aren’t equipped for such blazes.
Proper buildings were left unharmed. As in the recent Turkey earthquake. Only the illegal buildings were destroyed.
Ask the experts.
But if I see Californian construction habits it's not safe at all.
Of course there are angry individuals and of course leadership should identify areas for improvement. Nothing ever improves unless people are able to take an honest look at failures and shortcomings.
This is a complex system here. The article only focuses on the reservoir, not the whole fire prevention and response; yet that one simple piece of a much larger problem already talks about federal law, water quality standards, engineering culture at the LA DWP, procurement rules for the city of LA, lack of qualified contractors and a couple more issues.
Addressing this in a satisfactory manner may be very difficult or even impossible. Infrastructure needs maintenance and down time. A typical way around that is to duplicate it, but this is probably too costly here. Experts already stated that had the reservoir been full it may not have made much of a difference. So paying to have two reservoirs a primary and a backup that may or may not be useful in case of a fire sounds like a bad solution, tying up precious resources that could be used in more effective fire prevention measures.
For an honest postmortem and action plan going forward, of course not.
Frequency and severity of fires is up, and people have been building closer to the areas where they happen. Kinda simple stuff. We either need to build further away or increase resilience (building codes, responses etc).
Changing the climate probably is outside of local control…
This is the mindset I'm coming around to.
Whether you think climate change is mostly human caused, or part of some natural cycle, it's happening and it will probably get worse. We need to figure out how to deal with the consequences of it, rather than pretending/hoping we can change the course.
When climate change events occur, people will say we could've done more (while there is no evidence today there is willingness to pay these readiness and mitigation costs). When they don't happen, people will complain we're wasting money. The only way to win is to manage your own climate and economic risk at the individual level (in the short term). Maybe people improve, allowing for institutions to improve, but probably not. There is no appetite for the will, spending, and economic drag that will be required to fix this. The accumulated off balance sheet debt (the costs to mitigate climate change) has accelerated beyond the light cone of economic potential (structural demographic decline, labor costs increasing as labor forces decline, future debt obligations, etc).
Is the world becoming uninsurable? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42732728 - Jan 2025
Dependency and depopulation? Confronting the consequences of a new demographic reality - https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/dependency-and-dep...
Climate crisis costs the world 12% in GDP for every 1°C temperature rise - https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/nature-climate-news-...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
/sr