5 ms·

California has by far the most number of wildfires and most acres burned each year compared to other states, no matter your measure. States can sue one another

California has by far the most number of wildfires and most acres burned each year compared to other states, no matter your measure. States can sue one another over water rights if one state is polluting water upstream to another state. Is a similar right available for air rights? It seems unfair that Nevada, Idaho, Colorado and Montana have to suffer from California’s mismanagement and lack of prevention, and perhaps a lawsuit would finally provide the right incentives.

davidw 5y ago
Most of the land burning is federal land: Forest Service and BLM, for instance.
- SnowProblem 5y ago
  Does California not have a role there? Or perhaps the suit should be against the federal government then, or both, but something needs to change. It doesn’t have to be this way.
  - oscardssmith 5y ago
    California can't control federal land (that's why it's called federal).
  - s5300 5y ago
    The Fed Govt. is in charge of the overwhelming vast majority of the forest in Cali. >It doesn't have to be this way When you have one of two political parties that meaningfully exist in the US parroting the fact they "believe the Fed. Govt should be small enough you can drown it in a bathtub" It does in fact have to be this way.
    - SnowProblem 5y ago
      Thanks. I enjoyed reading up on that today. As for the federal role, I think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. Both parties are for big government, and neither has solved this when they could.
      - s5300 5y ago
        ? One party is most definitely not for big government, or at least they claim not to be to garner a large portion of their votes. And, if they are for big government, they've proven time and time again to not give the slightest fuck about managing things that need to be managed, in favor of slashing/redirecting all budgets for more frivolous endeavours. >neither has solved this when they could. Yes, this goes hand in hand with their re-election tactics. They complain about something, say they'll solve it, don't solve it when given an opportunity, then campaign again on said issues, and repeat this for decades. It's quite simple and works because their constituency appears to have the attention span of a walnut. >think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. You obviously don't have the best understanding of how the US legal system works, especially on this level. A lawsuit can/will quite literally drag things out until all involved are pretty much dead/it's too damn late to save whatever the lawsuit was about in the first place.
        SnowProblem 5y ago
        Why do you think a lawsuit would be fruitless? Yes courts move slow, but there is clear harm here. The federal government bears responsibility over this land. If they don’t want it, then they should hand the land over to the states, or otherwise compensate those states affected. There have been many disputes about water rights over the years that are similar to this. I would bet this will happen eventually.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Pretty unlikely, California and the west is finally returning to its natural burn cycle, albeit with a bang. Annual burn acres are closer to the pre-1800s. We need more smaller prescribed burns, not less. If residents in neighboring states don't like it, the are free to relocate.

davidw 5y ago

Most of the land burning is federal land: Forest Service and BLM, for instance.

SnowProblem 5y ago
Does California not have a role there? Or perhaps the suit should be against the federal government then, or both, but something needs to change. It doesn’t have to be this way.
- oscardssmith 5y ago
  California can't control federal land (that's why it's called federal).
- s5300 5y ago
  The Fed Govt. is in charge of the overwhelming vast majority of the forest in Cali. >It doesn't have to be this way When you have one of two political parties that meaningfully exist in the US parroting the fact they "believe the Fed. Govt should be small enough you can drown it in a bathtub" It does in fact have to be this way.
  - SnowProblem 5y ago
    Thanks. I enjoyed reading up on that today. As for the federal role, I think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. Both parties are for big government, and neither has solved this when they could.
    - s5300 5y ago
      ? One party is most definitely not for big government, or at least they claim not to be to garner a large portion of their votes. And, if they are for big government, they've proven time and time again to not give the slightest fuck about managing things that need to be managed, in favor of slashing/redirecting all budgets for more frivolous endeavours. >neither has solved this when they could. Yes, this goes hand in hand with their re-election tactics. They complain about something, say they'll solve it, don't solve it when given an opportunity, then campaign again on said issues, and repeat this for decades. It's quite simple and works because their constituency appears to have the attention span of a walnut. >think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. You obviously don't have the best understanding of how the US legal system works, especially on this level. A lawsuit can/will quite literally drag things out until all involved are pretty much dead/it's too damn late to save whatever the lawsuit was about in the first place.
      - SnowProblem 5y ago
        Why do you think a lawsuit would be fruitless? Yes courts move slow, but there is clear harm here. The federal government bears responsibility over this land. If they don’t want it, then they should hand the land over to the states, or otherwise compensate those states affected. There have been many disputes about water rights over the years that are similar to this. I would bet this will happen eventually.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Pretty unlikely, California and the west is finally returning to its natural burn cycle, albeit with a bang. Annual burn acres are closer to the pre-1800s. We need more smaller prescribed burns, not less. If residents in neighboring states don't like it, the are free to relocate.