America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb

[tj]

I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!

Pick your insurance calamity poison: 
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.


Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?

Maybe central East, but not on the coast?  I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland.  Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely.  You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.

I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!

Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.

No not too cold at all. I lived there for a few years (as well as other cold places like Alaska for 4 years and Canada as a kid/teen). I love the snow, cold fog in summer and the humidity but I'm not a rain person and it seems like it's extra rainy and warm everywhere in New England now. And the storms are bad. One thing I do like about coastal Calif is the marine layer most of the year that keeps it cooler. Anything above 70, especially if dry and sunny, sucks the life out of me.  Just saw a current wildfire map of the US and it's really looming bad for most places and it's early in the season.

Interesting - we are the opposite - I am happy the few months when the marine layer is not there. :D

[Le Poisson]

As much as I hate winter, the climate here (Southern Ontario) is a fantastic compromise of all the things. We get winter, but the "real winter" is only a couple weeks long, and there's only a couple truly heavy snows each year. We get summer heat. But the deadly hot is only a few weeks late in August. Muddy rain in spring - yup. Just a week or two followed by all the flowers. Autumn is blissful with a cold snap late enough that we can grow heat loving veggies.

I look at California or Costa Rica with envy of their endless summers, but for a year round place that still has good quality of life, this is pretty OK.

[spartana]

I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!

Pick your insurance calamity poison: 
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.


Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?

Maybe central East, but not on the coast?  I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland.  Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely.  You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.

I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!

Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.

No not too cold at all. I lived there for a few years (as well as other cold places like Alaska for 4 years and Canada as a kid/teen). I love the snow, cold fog in summer and the humidity but I'm not a rain person and it seems like it's extra rainy and warm everywhere in New England now. And the storms are bad. One thing I do like about coastal Calif is the marine layer most of the year that keeps it cooler. Anything above 70, especially if dry and sunny, sucks the life out of me.  Just saw a current wildfire map of the US and it's really looming bad for most places and it's early in the season.

Interesting - we are the opposite - I am happy the few months when the marine layer is not there. :D

The sign of a True (southern) Californian!! Which apparently I'm not but BF is so...dreaded compromise ;-). I try to get all outdoor activities done before 11 am otherwise too hot and sunny for me most places in SoCal.

I like 4 seasons and really cold temps and snow in winter and warmer but not hot summers but it is harder in the west to find that without all the wildfire and flood risks. Like the fish dude above, I lived in a more northern part of Ontario (closer to Timmons) as a kid/early teen before moving to SoCal and winters were pretty harsh then up there. But now they seem milder and mud season (and black fly season!) seems longer. I hear that's pretty noticible in the Arctic were permafrost is melting at an alarming rate.

[LD_TAndK]

Maybe central East, but not on the coast?  I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland.  Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely.  You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.

I'm in central Maryland, it's a great place for stability. No natural disasters, no hurricanes, no (major) tornadoes, no fires, no earthquakes, no floods (small exceptions), hail is rare and small, no extreme winds, winters are mild, summers are hot but not deadly, we don't get many mosquitos here (you will in eastern MD), our government is a reasonable center left, jobs are a-plenty, everyone is sane and well-off.

[AnotherEngineer]

I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!

Pick your insurance calamity poison: 
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.


Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?

It is worth being more specific about Alaska given that it is 20% of the US landmass, granted that the vast majority of that would be seen as unlivable to the vast majority of those currently living Outside. I could see it becoming a climate change haven in terms of overall conditions, though climate change is happening more rapidly in the arctic, forcing village relocations, more rain-on-snow events (the worst weather possible for both driving and recreating), and more. Even one of the few main highways just washed out due to a river eroding its banks very quickly.

• volcanoes are limited to lightly populated areas, though ash can and has impacted air travel, which is far more "essential" in Alaska
• earthquakes do happen with high regularity (here is just the last two weeks:https://earthquake.alaska.edu/earthquakes/?XQAAAAIrAAAAAAAAAABBqQmmE3eV5EUgH7ZjD94iJiVMLSD7BL5qFARwj-vOYglc0XNTTXBFtOiMF2ah7bY3_9ZSAAA) but only occasionally impact urban areas, which are designed for it. The Anchorage 7.2 a few years ago mostly just broke some dishes if your cabinets were aligned with the axis of movement, though the 9.2 in '64 did some damage to poorly built buildings. Most places are pretty immune to tsunamis as well, especially Anchorage. 
• fires are absolutely becoming more regular and more significant, impacting outlying populated areas
• landslides certainly do happen and killed a few people in Juneau this winter, but is limited to small areas in Southeast
• floods besides permafrost melting, river erosion, and ice dams, Alaska doesn't see the flooding of the rest of the country from storms.
• blizzards are technically low visibility events due to blowing snow so I'll add heavy snowfall. Yes, this does collapse a few roofs sometimes in heavy snow years, but is generally not a safety issue or even impact flights due to maintenance capabilities and general competency of the public
• wind events are common and do knock down a lot of trees occasionally, but don't really do any widespread damage
• etc: I'll give you general cold, but again, not if you are prepared for it. Homeless folks regularly see subzero temps and the UAF students break out their swimwear for photos with the sign at -40 (F or C). Also, not as much of this as there used to be.

Most of Alaska is more resilient than most of the US given the popularity of chest freezers full of fish and game, chainsaws, and general capabilities. However, and this strays from insurance, there is no reasonable way to evacuate populations in a calamity, whether that be isolated areas to Anchorage, or Anchorage to elsewhere. There is not enough fuel, airplane capacity, available passenger ships, food, etc to get people out. There are few or just one road route and those pass through huge remote areas with very limited logistics, susceptible bridges, etc. The nearest population centers than could handle and Anchorage-sized population are Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary, all 2,000 road miles away, not all of which is paved.

Okay, that got a bit off topic, but interesting to think about the total location risk picture.

[spartana]

^^^ I lived in anchorage for 4 years inn the early 1990s and while there seemed to be a lot of earthquakes and especially wind storms coming up turnagain arm at 100 mph it just seems to be getting worse up there according to Alaskan friends. I agree it's a hard place to evacuate in any disaster and that may likely get harder if the few main roads get washed out. Or the wildfire fires make it impossible to get out.  I lived there during the MT. Spur eruption and you couldn't fly or drive anywhere for quite a while due to the thick ash - what a mess!!

[FINate]

I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!

Pick your insurance calamity poison: 
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.


Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?

Most of these risks are fairly localized and don't apply evenly to entire regions.

I live in Boise, so the West and (by some definitions) the PNW. We don't really have earthquakes with the most problematic faults 100 miles away. No volcano risk. Fire is a danger in the mountains/forest, but not really much in the valley where the city is located. No landslide risk in the valley. Some flood risk near rivers, but otherwise not a problem. We don't get much snow and ice storms aren't common.

Same can be said for cities in California away from active faults and not in the forest. E.g. Sacramento, Fresno, etc.

Hurricanes dissipate quickly over land, so inland areas of the SE are fine.

Pretty much any place not right on the ring of fire, inland, and not in forest is fairly low risk. Yet people are drawn to the beauty of these risky places.

[Sibley]

Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.

[NorCal]

Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.

Agreed. I asked about metal when my roof was damaged. The roofer said it would be about 3x the cost. Although that was likely his F-no price because he doesn’t specialize in metal roofs.

I’m not an expert in the topic, but I believe part of the added cost has to do with complex rooflines that are prevelant on newish construction. A simple roof would be relatively easy to do metal with, but complex dormers and eves probably make construction a huge pain.

[former player]

First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o

[roomtempmayo]

Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.

We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.

Our roofer was even more blunt.  He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan.  Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.

[spartana]

First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o

I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).

[RWD]

First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o

I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).

Correct. Both earliest Cat 4 and earliest Cat 5 on the historical record.

[tj]

First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o

I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).

I saw "extreme heat warning. Stay hydrated" signs on the freeway sign near Dana Point the other day, but it was at most high 70s. :D

[StarBright]

As much as I hate winter, the climate here (Southern Ontario) is a fantastic compromise of all the things. We get winter, but the "real winter" is only a couple weeks long, and there's only a couple truly heavy snows each year. We get summer heat. But the deadly hot is only a few weeks late in August. Muddy rain in spring - yup. Just a week or two followed by all the flowers. Autumn is blissful with a cold snap late enough that we can grow heat loving veggies.

I look at California or Costa Rica with envy of their endless summers, but for a year round place that still has good quality of life, this is pretty OK.

Do you get the grey Lake Erie winters, or do those only happen south of lake, like lake effect snow? I feel mostly the same about Northern Ohio weather (and climate is ultimately why we chose to settle here instead of taking a job in TX), but the unrelenting grey from November-April bother me more than I had anticipated.

[spartana]

First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o

I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).

I saw "extreme heat warning. Stay hydrated" signs on the freeway sign near Dana Point the other day, but it was at most high 70s. :D

I saw those signs too and figured that since those freeways go inland a bit where it's hotter they gotta warn you (Warning: Entering Mission Viejo. You're all gonna die of heat stroke!!).  I guess when it's this hot and people go off even slightly inland and stop for a hike it can be dangerous. A least we don't have the big winds (Santa Ana's) yet as that could be a mega-disaster with wildfires.

"Mission Viejo, CA Severe Weather Alert. 81 degrees" lol  actually it's now 90 but we're all weather wimps here so we feel like death is imminent.

[Sibley]

Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.

We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.

Our roofer was even more blunt.  He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan.  Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.

That would change in a hurry if insurance companies stopped paying for asphalt roofs. Or put a limit on how often they'll pay for a roof or repairs, and said limit is the actual lifespan of the roof. That would help with the fraud as well.

[GilesMM]

This was in the news again today although I'm not sure the map is new.  Shows the coasts as risky but also some of the hotter inland parts of the west and some midwest tornado/blizzard areas.


I imagine most of us are in these counties (we are orange...) as most of the forum seems to be west coast software engineers.


https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map

[FINate]

This was in the news again today although I'm not sure the map is new.  Shows the coasts as risky but also some of the hotter inland parts of the west and some midwest tornado/blizzard areas.


I imagine most of us are in these counties (we are orange...) as most of the forum seems to be west coast software engineers.


https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map

I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.

As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.

[Sibley]

For my county specifically, here's the risk ratings:

Avalanche - Not Applicable
Coastal Flooding - Very Low
Cold Wave - Very High
Drought* - No Rating (um, we're in one. Whatever the official stuff says, my garden is quite firm on that)
Earthquake - Relatively Low
Hail - Very Low (you can't be very high on tornado and vey low on hail. Does not compute)
Heat Wave - Relatively High
Hurricane - Very Low
Ice Storm - Relatively Moderate
Landslide - Relatively Moderate (where? It's pretty flat)
Lightning - Relatively High
Riverine Flooding - Relatively Moderate
Strong Wind - Relatively High
Tornado - Very High
Tsunami - Insufficient Data
Volcanic Activity - Not Applicable
Wildfire - Relatively Low
Winter Weather - Relatively Moderate

So yes, there's nuance here.

[spartana]

Im in the red zone mostly because of very high risk from earthquakes, wildfires, floods, mudflows/landslided and winter weather hazards. Basicly west coast mountains. Even my old county was red for many of the same reasons but nothing winter weather related.  Of course it's all dependant on your location even within a red zone. What I wonder is why some cities are high risk zones surrounded by lower risk zones. Places like Detroit and Chicago for example. Is that due to higher populations so more individuals at risk if something happens or some kind if social risk (crime) or just in unique locations (like being on big lakes or rivers that flood) that are more subjected to greater risks?

[GilesMM]

I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.

As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.

Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red!  The whole country lights up.  Where to live?  Upper MN or WI?  No thanks.  Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country?    There is no perfect place it seems.

[bacchi]

I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.

As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.

Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red!  The whole country lights up.  Where to live?  Upper MN or WI?  No thanks.  Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country?    There is no perfect place it seems.

Duluth, MN, the favorite of climatologists everywhere!

[uniwelder]

I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.

As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.

Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red!  The whole country lights up.  Where to live?  Upper MN or WI?  No thanks.  Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country?    There is no perfect place it seems.

I'm located in a completely deep blue (climate safe) region that also happens to be consistently ranked among the top small towns to live. 

[FINate]

This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.

The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)

Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.

Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.

[spartana]

^^^ Yeah I think the only thing you can do is weigh the risks to the benefits and cross your fingers and hope for the best! Most of us have to make compromise for jobs or loved ones as well as costs so sometimes there's not a lots of choices to be made. I love the east coast - especially New England - and the risks and cost would be worth the reward for me. But...compromise (blech) so have been living in the west with its own risks. If I wasn't worried about continuously rising rent costs or being at a LLs mercy I'd just rent forever. But don't want to find myself at 80 or 90 years old getting the boot or priced out of the rental market.

[tj]

^^^ Yeah I think the only thing you can do is weigh the risks to the benefits and cross your fingers and hope for the best! Most of us have to make compromise for jobs or loved ones as well as costs so sometimes there's not a lots of choices to be made. I love the east coast - especially New England - and the risks and cost would be worth the reward for me. But...compromise (blech) so have been living in the west with its own risks. If I wasn't worried about continuously rising rent costs or being at a LLs mercy I'd just rent forever. But don't want to find myself at 80 or 90 years old getting the boot or priced out of the rental market.

I agree. This is why I feel I need to leave California sooner or later. I mean, I can probably swing a tiny place in Long Beach.  But I'd rather live in more comfort.

I keep waiting for a another 2009-like housing collapse, but it doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

[clifp]

I'm not sure that I have a lot faith in the accuracy. Here is the Honolulu report.
Drought low
Coastal flooding, Hurricane, Earthquake moderate
Winter weather no score
Ice Storm 89.1 relatively High.. How the hell is that possible
Hail is very low, (It think there have been two reports of hail in my 25 years)

[former player]

I'm not sure that I have a lot faith in the accuracy. Here is the Honolulu report.
Drought low
Coastal flooding, Hurricane, Earthquake moderate
Winter weather no score
Ice Storm 89.1 relatively High.. How the hell is that possible
Hail is very low, (It think there have been two reports of hail in my 25 years)

I think ice storms come down from the Artic to California?  Hawaii is south of that, but the climate will be destabilising for decades in ways that are not yet known.

[kanga1622]

Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.

We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.

Our roofer was even more blunt.  He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan.  Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.

My problem is that my latest quotes increased the wind/hail deductible on all the policies. One was 2% of policy value. That means on a less expensive home you will have some coverage. But if you are in a $500,000 home but have a fairly basic roof like a single story ranch you are going to be paying the majority of the roofing cost. Every policy I had quoted last year for my Midwest home had a separate wind/hail limit. My current roof is 17 years old and just lost the first shingle due to wind. I'm just waiting for them to start excluding roof coverage all together.

[NorCal]

This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.

The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)

Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.

Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.

Watching the Marshall fire, I came to a greater appreciation that while the WUI is significantly more risky, fires can spread pretty rapidly away from that as well.  IIRC, there were instances of neighborhoods catching on fire about a mile deep in the city and completely away from the flames.  The high winds gathered burning embers and distributed them that far.  There was nothing the firefighters could do to stop or even slow the fire.

I realize that's not a "normal" fire pattern.  But a fire like that happening in late-December isn't normal either.  There should have been snow on the ground. 

I'm also watching what's going on with electricity recovery in Houston.  While it's hard to quantify, there's clearly value living in an area that's investing in hardening infrastructure with well managed institutions.  I think urban areas are safer in a way because they naturally pool resources to manage things like storm infrastructure, disaster rehearsal, fire protection, etc. 

I suspect people going off to live "prepper" lives in Idaho will be much less prepared for climate change than those in urban areas with the resources to better prepare for climate change.

[spartana]

^^^There's been quite a few big wildfires in urban areas in Calif over the years. Malibu, Laguna Beach, Santa Rosa, suburban San Diego, etc... Lots of destruction.  Lots of fuel and hills in those urban areas to create big fires. And lots of expensive real estate too. There are several small fires around SoCal now and several big ones further north and more insurance companies are trying to increase rates here for HO insurance or not issuing policies so those in even suburban and urban areas might not be able to get coverage soon. My places has had some offers so hope to accept one this weekend and then go somewhere less fiery! And rent lol!

[GilesMM]

Our old neighborhood in the East Bay, a woodsy enclave near Berkeley, has developed an insurance crisis and recently had a town hall with state leaders. People are near panic. The area has also had rainy season home-destroying landslides in recent years which  are even scarier as such events are uninsurable.

[spartana]

Our old neighborhood in the East Bay, a woodsy enclave near Berkeley, has developed an insurance crisis and recently had a town hall with state leaders. People are near panic. The area has also had rainy season home-destroying landslides in recent years which  are even scarier as such events are uninsurable.

That's the problem in SoCal too - big wildfires in summer and fall followed by big mudslides due to lack of vegetation during winter rains. It's a big double whammy and some pretty expensive neighborhoods have been hit hard. I actually don't blame insurers too much for upping their rates or even denying coverage in some locations.  Apparently All State joined the bandwagon too.

[FINate]

This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.

The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)

Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.

Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.

Watching the Marshall fire, I came to a greater appreciation that while the WUI is significantly more risky, fires can spread pretty rapidly away from that as well.  IIRC, there were instances of neighborhoods catching on fire about a mile deep in the city and completely away from the flames.  The high winds gathered burning embers and distributed them that far.  There was nothing the firefighters could do to stop or even slow the fire.

I realize that's not a "normal" fire pattern.  But a fire like that happening in late-December isn't normal either.  There should have been snow on the ground. 

I'm also watching what's going on with electricity recovery in Houston.  While it's hard to quantify, there's clearly value living in an area that's investing in hardening infrastructure with well managed institutions.  I think urban areas are safer in a way because they naturally pool resources to manage things like storm infrastructure, disaster rehearsal, fire protection, etc. 

I suspect people going off to live "prepper" lives in Idaho will be much less prepared for climate change than those in urban areas with the resources to better prepare for climate change.

Indeed, the Marshall Fire shows no place is immune. Very high winds in dry conditions is always a danger. Here in Boise we've been in a heat wave for a few days and may have dry lightning today/tomorrow, so I'm somewhat nervously watching for smoke. Thankfully the prevailing winds here are almost always westerly which would push fire into the wilderness and not the city. Fingers crossed.

With insurance it's all about probabilities. A city surrounded by high loads of highly combustible fuels, e.g. oak and chaparral around Santa Rosa, is a high risk for producing ember storms that sweep into the urban area. This is one of the issues of building timber frame homes in the WUI -- it's adding fuel to the fuel. Small cities surrounded by thick brush/forest are particularly vulnerable, places like Malibu (esp. during Santa Ana winds) and Durango CO (which we considered moving to but rejected due to fire risk) are primed to burn. I expect these types of places will become uninsurable as risk models are updated.

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

[roomtempmayo]

I'm just waiting for them to start excluding roof coverage all together.

It seems likely that there'll be a big fight between insurers and mortgage companies over roofing coverage.

I mentioned upthread that insurers are already talking about pitching state legislation to change the standard coverage to functional (i.e. repair it so that it doesn't leak) from the present standard of fully replacing roofs that show a number of hail dents even if they're functionally fine.

I imagine in the midwest the savings would be substantial, but would open mortgage companies to more risk as older roofs stayed on houses.

[NorCal]

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography.  How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?


I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.

My dad has 3 acres in napa.  It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together.  My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors.  He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak.  That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.

The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.

Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.

[FINate]

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography.  How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?


I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.

My dad has 3 acres in napa.  It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together.  My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors.  He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak.  That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.

The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.

Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.

I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.

Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.

My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.

Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.

PS -  get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)

[FINate]

I should add that the Great Fire of 1910 was mostly in North Idaho. Basically the same story playing out in Jasper: drought followed by wind driven fire.

The 1910 fire informed the modern era of wildfire suppression, with the goal of controlling and containing fires before they get out of hand. I think it's clear at this point that we learned the wrong lessons from 1910. Fire is necessary and healthy for the forest, whereas 100 years of fire suppression have resulted in a build up of fuels. In a warming and drying climate it's even more important to manage these fuels. Near population centers and in the WUI this means mechanical thinning, which is expensive and should be paid for by those in these areas. In wilderness this means a lot more prescribed burns when conditions are suitable, likely requires changing some liability and air quality laws.

[ChpBstrd]

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography.  How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?


I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.

My dad has 3 acres in napa.  It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together.  My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors.  He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak.  That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.

The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.

Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.

I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.

Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.

My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.

Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.

PS -  get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)

At some point though, baking becomes as big a problem as burning for a house in the middle of a raging forest fire. Maybe the walls stay standing and the metal roof repels the flames, but the rubber or vinyl surrounding the windows can melt, flanges around roof penetrations can melt or burn, the exterior wiring can melt, door seals can melt, the exterior AC can melt, the interior could get so hot it will bake plastic stuff, etc. Then there's smoke damage. A "fire-proof" home might still require a complete rehab if it was close enough to the burning trees and logs, and be as toxic as an old burn barrel afterward.

[FINate]

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography.  How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?


I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.

My dad has 3 acres in napa.  It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together.  My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors.  He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak.  That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.

The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.

Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.

I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.

Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.

My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.

Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.

PS -  get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)

At some point though, baking becomes as big a problem as burning for a house in the middle of a raging forest fire. Maybe the walls stay standing and the metal roof repels the flames, but the rubber or vinyl surrounding the windows can melt, flanges around roof penetrations can melt or burn, the exterior wiring can melt, door seals can melt, the exterior AC can melt, the interior could get so hot it will bake plastic stuff, etc. Then there's smoke damage. A "fire-proof" home might still require a complete rehab if it was close enough to the burning trees and logs, and be as toxic as an old burn barrel afterward.

Yep, which is why I mention landscaping. The entire area around the structure needs to be non-combustible. No vinyl windows, upgraded glazing. And yes, ventilation matters. Housing in these areas becomes a fire resistant structure on a large bare patch of land.

[NorCal]

Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.

I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography.  How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?


I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.

My dad has 3 acres in napa.  It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together.  My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors.  He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak.  That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.

The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.

Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.

I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.

Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.

My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.

Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.

PS -  get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)

Yea, my mental image of N. Idaho is similar to the pacific northwest.  It's not an area that would be at high risk of fires, but the sheer volume of combustible materials would be insane if fire took hold. 

I wasn't clear on the properties;  The napa property is separate from where my his primary residence.  It's usually rented out, but he's fixing it up now.

I looked up both properties on the First Street foundation website.  The napa property has a 60% change of complete destruction in the next 30 years, although that could go down to 13% with fireproofing updates.  The property is valuable for location, but the home would be considered a tear-down by most would-be buyers.   

His home near Mt. Diablo is similar, with a 56% chance of total destruction in 30 years.

I'm no actuary, but I can do enough simple math to see why insurance companies aren't interested in insuring those homes.  A $1M house replaced every 30 years at a 60% probability works out to $20k/yr.  For this risk alone.  That math doesn't math. 

The NY Times did a good article (paywalled) about what the insurance companies would like to see for updating building codes to deal with fire.  It looks expensive, but I hope some of this starts getting put into the building code sooner rather than later.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/business/wildfires-home-insurance-building-standards.html?searchResultPosition=3

[spartana]

I'm just looking at the FIRE map and smoke map of current active fires and holy crap! It's crazy up north and further east in AZ and NM. Maybe this will be the year where they all merge into one super giant mega-fire. There's been predictions of that for a long time (along with "The Big One" earthquake in Calif so who knows! The End is Neigh apparently blah blah blah. Seriously scary those. My house is in escrow now and I'm just hoping it goes thru before the big winds cone and push all our little wildfires into a big wildfire.

[Sibley]

Question on the built up fuels. The most efficient way to remove it is to do a controlled burn, but that is difficult to do. In a populated area with a lot of built up dead vegetation or whatever, how do you manage it? The more fuel = for need to do a controlled burn but also the more risk it'll get out of hand.

[FINate]

Question on the built up fuels. The most efficient way to remove it is to do a controlled burn, but that is difficult to do. In a populated area with a lot of built up dead vegetation or whatever, how do you manage it? The more fuel = for need to do a controlled burn but also the more risk it'll get out of hand.

There's no easy solution for controlled burns in populated areas. I'm going to keep repeating myself here: we need to stop building into wildlands, and those who really want to live in these areas need to bear the full cost of their choices. This includes the very labor and cost intensive mechanical thinning. Selective logging can, and should, be part of this. This cannot be clear cutting or companies taking only the largest most profitable trees, but needs to be part of an overall forest management plan of also thinning younger trees and brush.

Prescribed burns are for large unpopulated wilderness areas. Forest managers track vegetation moisture levels and combined with weather forecasts and seasonal patterns, they plan burns to produce low intensity fire that stays in the understory and mostly consumes dead and down fuel and thins brush. They want to avoid crown fires that climb trees and kill the entire forest. Out west this mostly means early or late season burns, depending on elevation and other factors. E.g. in the Sierra Nevada mountains late October after some amount of rain/snow combined with higher humidity and lower temperatures. The goal should be to return to what's known as a mosaic burn pattern.

This is very healthy for the forest and wildlife. Many of our forests in the West are way too dense and overgrown. They look pretty from a distance, but if you hike into these (as I have while hunting) they are essentially dead zones because the forest is so thick no sunlight reaches the forest floor and is impassable for larger animals. The forest density also means trees are competing for too little water, making them susceptible to bark beetle infestations.

The best example I can think of for a well managed wilderness out west is Yosemite National Park. They've been doing controlled burns for decades and generally monitor yet allow lightning ignited wildfires to burn in the high country. The result is larger trees with further spacing and less brush/deadwood -- forest that one can actually walk through. We need a lot more of this, but this means changing laws to limit liability if a prescribed burn is property planned but happens to get out of hand (it happens), and we need to accept that this means air quality will be negatively impacted in places but this is far more desirable than weeks of thick smoke from a monster fire.

[deborah]

I live in the capital of Australia, where we have controlled burns every month of the year when wildfire isn’t likely. They do a mosaic of burns. We have a lot of urban nature reserves (every ridge and small waterway is a park, mainly of native vegetation). The 2003 Canberra firestorm showed that the city plan enables fire to break the city into pieces along the ridges of urban nature reserves (during that fire, the fire crossed every road joining some areas to the rest of the city), but some of our urban nature reserves are the largest contiguous pieces of a particular ecosystem extant, including several highly endangered species (all but 1% of this ecosystem has been used for agriculture), so it’s impossible to infill them. We narrowly missed being hit by the 2019-2020 fires (I could see them from my house for a few weeks), possibly partly because of all the controlled burns. I live in a suburb surrounded by other suburbs - not on the semi-rural fringe.

While our vegetation is some of the most pyrogenic in the world (many Australian plants require fire to germinate), most of it expects the cooler fires that are part of controlled burns, and our indigenous people have cultural methods that are being adapted and used for our burns.

[spartana]

^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire  prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.

[FINate]

We just don't do nearly enough controlled burns, as in total acreage. From NYT about the giant Park Fire in NorCal (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/climate/park-fire-california-heat.html)

What’s more, there’s not only dry fuel, but a lot of it. The blaze has spread across parts of the state that haven’t experienced fire in decades. Fire suppression practices have allowed vegetation to build up over long periods, in contrast to the frequent burns that were a common forest management tool of Indigenous tribes in California pre-1850, said Hugh Safford, a research ecologist at the University of California, Davis, and a former ecologist for the United States Forest Service in California. Those policies mean the rapid spread of the Park fire was “absolutely not surprising at any level,” he said.

[NorCal]

^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire  prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.

One challenge with climate change is that the season that is acceptable for prescribed burns is getting shorter every year.  There’s a lot of forest, and limited time and resources to do it.

[FINate]

^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire  prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.

One challenge with climate change is that the season that is acceptable for prescribed burns is getting shorter every year.  There’s a lot of forest, and limited time and resources to do it.

True, which means we need to start take a bit more risk and do controlled burns in less than ideal conditions. We need to disabuse ourselves of the fiction that wildfire can be prevented indefinitely. Especially in the semi-arid West, every forest must burn at some point -- it's a fire adapted ecosystem and fire is part of the natural and necessary cycle. The longer we put it off the more fuel builds up, it's like accumulating debt that eventually has to be paid. A less-than-ideal prescribed burn is far better than waiting until an extended heat wave dries vegetation combined with high winds to produce a worst case scenario like we see with the Park Fire, which doesn't just burn the accumulated fuel but also destroys the entire forest, killing mature trees and even degrading the soil due to extreme temperatures.