There were many fires in California last September, and there is rain
now, and mud.
I don't concentrate on California in my news reading, but I've been
wondering for a long time if the residents downhill from where the fires
have been ever do planting where the fires have burnt away the plants.
I do read and watch and listen to the news and I've never heard an
indication that they do.
Would grass planted last September have taken root by now? Trees are
more expensive but what about trees? Sod is expensive, but perhaps it
could be placed in strategic areas so it works without having to cover
Do the residents water what is planted? I have 100 feet of hose and I
live in a townhouse. If I lived there and there had been a fire uphill
from me, I'd buy 1000 feet of hose or more, whatever it took.
Sometimes the time before fire and mud is much longer than this time,
and yet i still hear about fears of mudslides, or about the mudslides
themselves, and never about places where the residents did anything to
prevent the mudslides.
Do the residents downhill do planting or do they generally/always just
wait until the state or county government gets around to doing it?
On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
That's certainly a factor. And IDK about Micky's replanting question,
but I'd bet that in most cases, it's not practical for a homeowner to
replant the areas taken out by fire. For one thing, if the fire is that
close, the house is probably gone anyway. And I would think many of
the fire areas are open land, govt land, etc where a homeowner can't
just go plant trees and shrubs. I would think there probably is a lot
of re-establishment, but that it's done by govt, not a property owner
directly. Isn't that what they pay all those high taxes in CA for?
no, the high taxes are to hand out as political favors and buy votes.
Whenever more money is needed, taxpayers are told Police and Fire don't have
enough money. No mention is ever made of cutting down the handouts and vote
buying and giving the money to police and fire.
Dems in DE robbed the transportation fund to balance the budget.
Then, the Dem governor asked for a 10 cent a gallon increase to get
money for transportation. Did not get it. Even Dems are not all dumb
enough to have not seen through this.
It's worse than that.
At least here, with Franciscan sediments abounding, the "mountain" is
basically 3,000 feet of mud.
Scrolling back to before the San Andreas fault formed, as I understand
it, the Pacific plate pushed northward against the Farallon Plate,
which pushed eastward against the North American plate, and since
ocean bedrock is, by nature, more dense than granitic contintents,
your basic subduction occurred.
This created a huge trench (much like the Marianas Trench of today)
something like six miles deep, where all this ocean mud and mafic
rock (mostly very wet volcanic bedrock) mixed up as if it were in
a blender (they called it the "Franciscian Nightmare" when they
were first trying to figure it out before plate tectonic theories
When the Farallon Plate was totally consumed (below Mendocino
California), the wholly mashed, mushed, and blended ocean muds
popped up to form a level plain, and the San Andreas Fault line
formed as the Pacific Plate continued to move northward.
Over time, water erosion found weaknesses in the level plain, and
the mountains were formed which surround Silicon Valley. At some
point, a fault block dropped down a few thousand feet, which created
the San Francisco Bay (which at that time, was just a river).
Fast forward a few million years to about sixteen thousand years
ago, and the glaciers melted from the last ice age, which flooded
the sunken fault block, which created the San Francisco Bay.
Meanwhile, the hills, which are really a 3,000 foot tall pile of
mud, started growing stuff on the top 30 feet, which made them
look solid (redwood trees, chaparral, bay trees, etc.).
Yet, the topography is *everywhere* influenced by erosion and
landslides. Entire towns are on top of landslides. Entire mountains
of earth slid downward, once every few thousand years, while
countless smaller landslides occurred on a daily basis everywhere.
It's landslide country everywhere. And it has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with mankind. Mankind is powerless to stop these
landslides. Mankind is also very stupid for putting houses on top
of cliffs which are doomed to be at the bottom of the cliff some
For reference, bear in mind that Phoenix and Morristown NJ both
had mountains *taller* than the Himalayas, more than once!
That's how powerful erosion is.
Anyone who says it's caused by man doesn't know geological history.
Of course, man can accelerate erosion - but - it's gonna happen anyway.
My own house is, eventually, doomed to slide down the hill some day.
And so is the hill itself, doomed to slide down the hill.
Now, thinking of the good news .... with all this mud ... I was
easily able to pull out the scotch broom infestation which has a
long (1 foot or so) taproot, which *only* comes out easily when
the ground is soaked!
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
No, no, no. They don't waste their time removing plants from land
they do not own, that is not on a lot where they are building a house.
The mudslides don't occur in 99% of places until after the fires have
burned away the various plants.
Maybe you're thinking about the landscaping of lots that are sold, or
some small areas, but the vast majority of land that is not the property
of the homeowners has never been touched.
But say I'm wrong, and 50% of the land has had its good plants removed
in favor of bad plants. In such areas the fire makes things worse,
doesn't it? And there is still 50% of the land that hasn't been
stripped like you suggest and there are people lving downhilll from
those areas too, who are subject to mudslides after the fire burns away
those plant s.
Where is here?
I never said mankind cause mudslides, and it doesn't. . The fires
usuallly started by lightning burn away the plants and the rain causes
Mankind is capable of replanting in areas where the plants have been
been burned away. Doesn't the government do that, just not quickly
enough to get every area before the rains come?
All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
No, no, I'm not talking about preventing mudslides to keep from burying
a road or other plants. I'm talking about the many many cases where
the house is still there. What do the firemen do all day and night but
try to keep the fire from getting to the houses, and if you follow the
news you know they succeed a lot of the time.
So there is no "probably the house is gone". !00% of my quesiton is
about the cases when the house is there, and 90% of my question is about
a house whose owner is living in it, or in some cases, renting it but
close enough that he can drive there and spend a day or many days
planting grass or bushes, or if he wants, maybe he can hire someone to
do that. But if he can't hire someone, don't you think it's worth
taking off a couple weeks to keep his house from being washed away
during the next big rains?
Perhaps not without asking, or asking what to plant, but if they were
going to plant the same thing the government was, it woudl take little,
maybe only a call to a government office or a newspaper, to get the
governement to agree to this. Or if you don't believe that, add to my
first question, Have you heard of any residents trying to get permission
The point of the question is, Mudslides are always predicted on a hill
after fire burns away the plants. Have residents done anything since
September to save their own property, and in other cases where they had
more time, did they do anything, and how much did they do?
Sometimes there has been moderate rain for two years after the fires and
the plants have plenty of time to take root
So you would just sit and wait for the government to do for you, even
though they may well not plant until it's too late for the plants to
take firm root, and they may not even plant before the rains? You'd
just sit back until your house and everything around it was pushed down
the hill by the mud, except the swiimming pool which was filled by the
mud? That's what you would do?
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:10:00 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
I said if the fire burned out the trees on property that you actually
own, to the extent a mud slide is coming, the house was probably lost.
Most of the homes I see saved on the news footage are saved by intercepting
the fire long before it gets to a house, usually before the fire even
gets to the actual property the house is on.
!00% of my quesiton is
and spend a day or many days
Maybe, if he owns the property so that he can do the replanting. And
if it were effective. It was a drought you know. Planting stuff on
a barren hill, in a drought, having it survive, seems like it would
require more than just taking off a couple weeks from work. Like how
are you going to keep it irrigated?
Obviously you haven't dealt much with govt.
Or if you don't believe that, add to my
No, but then I'm not the one so interested in it and I don't live
there, so why would I know about what citizens are requesting?
Good grief, try reading what I posted. I didn't say what I would or
wouldn't do. I just pointed out that you
generally can't just go plant things on land you don't own and I would
bet that in many cases, the homeowners don't own or control the land
up the hill someplace that the mud slide is going to come from. And if
you want to re-establish plantings on a burned out hill in the middle
of a drought, it's not as simple as just digging a hole and shoving
some plant in. I remember an arbor day here in NJ when I was president
of a condo association. One of the board members got a bunch of seedling
trees from the county govt and wanted volunteers to go plant them.
I didn't go, because I knew that putting a small seedling in the middle
of an open, unirrigated space was doomed to failure. They spent a day
planting 100+ seedlings. You know how many survived the first summer?
Zero. And that wasn't even a drought situation.
The land burned by fires is 1 billionth of the land available.
Plus, nature recovers the flora and fauna after a fire relatively quickly.
Anyway, that's all I'll say as I'm not an expert in reforestation dynamics.
Have you ever looked at a fire map of California versus
The Mexicans can not afford to put out their fires, so
they don't. Consequently, the burn sports on their map
is tiny. Mexico does not interrupt the natural fire
cycle, so they don't have a problem. No mud slides,
no problem with the natural flora growing back, etc..
California on the other hand, goes and put everything out,
so the natural fire cycle is interrupted. Consequently,
California's burn spots on the map are HUGE. And, they
get all the mud slides, pollution, loss of life and
property, natural flora burned so bad it won't grow
These burn maps were part of my college geography courses.
They are a real eye opener.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
Why are you telling me this? I"m not interested in how much other
land is available . I'm only talking about the area where there are
fires and the possibility of mudslides. The people who live there who
lose their homes won't have much solace because there is other land
Relatively, but not so fast that rain after fires doesn't often cause
mudslides. Or are you saying it's not often, so since there a smaller
chance their house will be washed away by mud, it's reasonable that they
don't do anything, even though some houses will be? If you're saying
that, assume my question had said to concentrate on the ares where
mudlslides from uphill were very likely. Do those people make an effort
to plant replacement plants or do they just sit back?
My first post and every post has been about what people in risk areas do
so that the mudslides won't happen and their houses won't be destroyed,
Do they do anything and how much do they do?
Or do they just wait for nature or the government to do it, even if
neither nature nor the government does it in time to save them.
Actually, um, no. As I said, I'm not an expert so I probably
should have kept my mouth shut.
My main point was that landslides are part of the geology of
So, I'll try to gracefully weasel out of here as I'm not at all
informed as to what the effect of putting out fires is. ...
you forget that the replacement of most of the
ecosystem has taken place over the past few hundred
years (often caused by over grazing animals on very
marginal arid lands, subsequent fires, mudslides,
over half the grasses and plants that used to
be there are gone and replaced by species that are
suited to fire and mud flows and not at all for
stablising the hillsides.
replanting burned areas can happen in some areas
but you need water to grow plants. for such huge
areas the water must come from natural rainfalls
which simply have not happened during this drought.
to change the plant mix back towards one that
would stablise the hillsides would take quite some
years. more regular burns would likely help as
they make fires burn more quickly, but with less
overall damage to trees and shrubs or the deeper
rooted grasses. however, you won't see many people
in favor of more fires because it does put houses
at risk, especially those that have been during the
recent past where fire has been suppressed.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.