The Fires of Los Angeles
The wildfires that broke out on 7th January in various parts of Los Angeles have now been raging for three days and, initially driven by very high winds, have destroyed thousands of properties. Almost 200,000 people have been forced to evacuate their homes but so far it seems the loss of life has been limited. Let’s hope it stays that way, though realistically the death toll will probably rise.
The fire that broke out in the Eaton Canyon is still burning over a large area to the North-East of Los Angeles near Pasadena, which is the location of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Carnegie Observatories. Through astrophysics and cosmology I know quite a few people working at these establishments, including members of the Euclid Consortium. As far as I know neither place has been directly affected by the fires, though they have been closed due to heavy smoke and wind damage. I found out today, however, that some colleagues working there and living nearby have lost their homes and all their possessions to the flames. At least they themselves – and their families – are safe and accounted for but it must be a very grim time for them.
When the smoke has cleared I hope they will get practical assistance needed to start that process. In that vein, I see that a Caltech and JPL Disaster Relief Fund has been set up. You might consider making a donation.
On a more personal note I have an old and dear friend – not an academic – who lives near Santa Monica in the area marked on the map as Palisades Fire. Looking at the satellite pictures it seems his home has been destroyed too. It was, however, placed under an evacuation order some time ago. I assume he complied and is safe and sound, though I have so far been unable to contact him.
My thoughts are with anyone affected by these terrible events.
In the Dark 
January 11, 2025 at 12:59 am
This seems to have been an avoidable disaster. Insufficient controlled burning in the past allowed scrub to build up to dangerous levels; there was no water pressure in many hydrants; and the fire service was depleted. The first two mistakes seem to have been due to green initiatives by persons who lived elsewhere, although they did win elections. The physics is simple but the human lessons are complex.
The insurance companies were aware of the elevated risk but were prevented from raising premiums appropriately by Proposition 103 of Californian State Law, limiting rises in the cost of insurance. The insurers consequently quit the market, and many properties were likely uninsured.
I hope the wind drops and the fires spread no further.
January 12, 2025 at 2:00 pm
Having lived in LA for a decade I can state categorically that to say this was an avoidable disaster is a comment illustrating abject ignorance of the circumstances and the mechanisms. Reminds one of the quote attributed to Mark Twain about the wisdom of staying silent.
January 12, 2025 at 10:22 pm
Peopele most commonly resort to insult when they run short of argument.
January 11, 2025 at 2:48 am
Hi Anton,
Here’s some related information from the Washington Post:
<i>Experts in urban water supply said the hydrants ran dry because of a host of factors, including spiking demand that made it difficult to quickly refill them. Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other areas of Los Angeles County rely on a patchwork of municipal systems that are designed to battle house fires, not massive wildfires consuming blocks at a time.
[…]
Several experts dismissed Trump’s claim that Newsom could have averted the tragedy by transferring water from Northern California. Southern California’s reservoirs are actually above historical levels, “a best-case scenario for emergency response,” according to Ashley Overhouse, water policy adviser at Defenders of Wildlife.
“There is no connection whatsoever between California’s water policies and the water available for firefighters in Southern California,” Peter Gleick, senior fellow and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, said of Trump’s claims. “They’re unrelated issues.”</i>
The state’s insurance regulators have kept insurance premiums artificially low like you say, and insurance companies have reacted by not renewing policies in very high risk areas, or even leaving the state altogether. Not a sustainable situation for sure. Regulators are finally adjusting to the reality of increased fire risk, allowing insurance companies to price in the effects of changing California climate.
January 11, 2025 at 5:43 am
In politicised disputes it can be hard to find where truth is, as often a factor is cited by one side that is true but minor, as a diversion. Were the reservoirs fuller than average *for the time of year*? Were there fewer of them and was connectivity less than in the past? I don’t know, but I want to find out.
January 12, 2025 at 9:17 am
In these disasters, it is better pull together rather than throw punches. Blaming people based on insufficient data is no help to anyone. There will be an investigation later and lessons will be learned.
January 12, 2025 at 12:47 pm
The insurance companies already had sufficent data.