Skip to content

LA wildfires on track to be second-costliest ever

The LA wildfires are already the third costliest fire disaster in recent history:

The current estimate of around $55 billion is almost certain to increase, which will place LA in second place all time. That's in three days. The only bigger disaster, the 2019 Australian bushfires, lasted five months.

15 thoughts on “LA wildfires on track to be second-costliest ever

  1. D_Ohrk_E1

    Depending on how one measures it, I suggest the costs may be significantly more.

    - I'm sure LA County and the state will add new regs that will make replaced housing more expensive.
    - What follows a deforested, denuded mountain side in Southern California are debris flows. Lots of them. There will be more tragedies stemming from these fires.

    1. Ken Rhodes

      Less than 24 hours ago Kevin wrote this:

      “How do you get water up to high elevations in order to fight fires? Answer: build big water tanks even higher up. This is what Los Angeles does, and its network of tanks includes three million-gallon tanks near Pacific Palisades, site of the worst of LA's massive wildfires.

      “The tanks were all filled last week, but the Pacific Palisades fire was so big—enormously bigger than any previous fire in the area—that they ran out of water yesterday.”

      So unless youve discovered a way to pump ten thousand gallons per minute, hour after hour, from a desalination processor, the problem isn’t getting more water; rather, the problem is creating LOTS more storage for the available water that currently runs off into the ocean.

    2. rick_jones

      Bbbut desalination is bad because it sucks up so much energy (and tiny sea creatures) and spits out so much brine…

      The energy consumption is considerable. Personally I think/guess half a dozen Diablo Canyons would cover it.

  2. SwamiRedux

    Who's going to build the replacement housing? Construction crews will be deported starting on Jan 20.

    Also people who work on farms. And in restaurants. And janitorial services. But I digress.

  3. jrmichener

    From an engineer's perspective it is clear that the fire resistance requirements for housing in the area need to be significantly increased - both for all new / replacement construction, and for existing structures (probably with a 10 year or so implementation requirement). Looking at the pictures, with a fierce Santa Anna wind I think there was structure-to-structure fire transmission. Now the question is - will they do it? Will they look at larger scale rebuilding?

      1. jrmichener

        Somewhat - the hazard was less in the past, but with the climate warming and drying, the hazard is much more pressing now. The analogy is more to building along the gulf coast, where the tidal surge and hurricane issues are now much more dangerous on the average.

    1. lawnorder

      One of the problems with building for fire resistance is that Southern California has the twin hazards of fire and earthquakes. Wood frame structures are not very fire resistant but they are extremely earthquake resistant. Concrete or brick structures, on the other hand, are extremely fire resistant but not very earthquake resistant.

      Given the desirability of earthquake resistance, I suspect the best answer is wood frame covered, walls and roof, with fire resistant materials.

  4. jrmichener

    After Chicago burned down they rebuilt in brick. Ditto Seattle - they didn't know that Seattle was in an earthquake zone. Now all those masonry buildings need to be demolished and replaced with earthquake resistant structures.

    But roofs need to be proof against flying embers and branches, and siding needs to withstand a moderate grass / brush fire. And I suspect that fire shutters are needed to deal with that risk - and exposed rafters / roof undersides need to be protected from fire. .... Intumscent paints will help, but are not sufficient. I suspect fire resistant / proof siding and high temperature insulation will be needed if the structure isn't reinforced concrete.

  5. Dana Decker

    There's a lot of concern that Trump will be unwilling to assist Los Angeles (and surrounding cities) in the wake of the fire. He's certainly capable, and inclined to stiff a blue state and municipality. Democrats have no power at the federal level. Is Los Angeles screwed?

    Maybe .... but Los Angeles hosts the 2028 Olympics and if there's one thing Trump cares about it's his image. Tell him a run down, shoddy, post-fire Los Angeles will make America, and him by extension, look bad (while he's president) just might get him to send money and resources to help rebuild.

    Many Angelinos were unimpressed for the usual reasons when the previous mayor worked to secure the Olympics. Now, it's looking like it could be a real asset.

Comments are closed.