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
everything.

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?

micky wrote:
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 everything.

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?

Do the fires cause the mudslides, or does the rain cause the fires by wild
growth of grasses that then dry out and burn, .........?

On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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?

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

Frank wrote, on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:43:15 -0500:

I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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
were proven).

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
day.

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!

Danny D. wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000:

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!

It's so satisfying pulling out the Scotch Broom when the ground is soaked!
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8635/1...47a91489_b.jpg

What is impossible in 99% of the year, is trivially easy just after a
good soaking!
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8564/1...0b1d9533_b.jpg

The taproot can be two-feet long, but still pulls out easily!
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7478/1...dc35aa34_b.jpg

The trick is to use the California weather to our advantage!
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7509/1...9ce7714e_b.jpg

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Frank wrote, on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:43:15 -0500:

I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

It's worse than that.

At least here,

Where is 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
were proven).

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.

I never said mankind cause mudslides, and it doesn't. . The fires
usuallly started by lightning burn away the plants and the rain causes
mudslides.

Mankind is powerless to stop these
landslides.

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?

Mankind is also very stupid for putting houses on top
of cliffs which are doomed to be at the bottom of the cliff some
day.

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!

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

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?

there 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.

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
to plant?

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

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?

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 12/12/2014 09:35 AM, Reggie wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.



Ain't that the truth. :'(

micky wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:04:22 -0500:

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.

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.

On 12/13/2014 12:36 AM, Danny D. wrote:
micky wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:04:22 -0500:

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.

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.



Hi Danny,

Have you ever looked at a fire map of California versus
Baja California?

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
back, etc..

These burn maps were part of my college geography courses.
They are a real eye opener.

-T

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

micky wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:04:22 -0500:

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.

The land burned by fires is 1 billionth of the land available.


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
elsewhere.

Plus, nature recovers the flora and fauna after a fire relatively quickly.

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.



Anyway, that's all I'll say as I'm not an expert in reforestation dynamics.

On Friday, December 12, 2014 12:34:47 PM UTC-5, Reggie wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

As if money for any public projects, whether for planting trees, or
building roads, bridges, trash removal, doesn't have similar political
favor angles. Idiot.

On Saturday, December 13, 2014 1:10:00 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:30:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

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".

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
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?


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?



there 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.

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.

Obviously you haven't dealt much with govt.


Or if you don't believe that, add to my
first question, Have you heard of any residents trying to get permission
to plant?


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?



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

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?

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?

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.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

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.

Very interesting. Thanks
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

Todd wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:01:26 -0800:

Have you ever looked at a fire map of California versus
Baja California?

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
California.

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. ...

micky wrote:
....
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.

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,
etc).

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.


songbird

micky wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 04:23:58 -0500:

Why are you telling me this?

Again, I really should stay out of this debate, as I see landslides
every single day after a rain, and I've never ever seen one related
to fire damage - so I should have stayed out of the conversation
because, while I have years of experience with the non-fire related
landslides, I have absolutely zero experience with the fire related
ones.

But, to just answer the "why" I was saying that, is that I don't
believe mudslides are, in general, caused by the lack of vegetation
that results from the lack of vegetation maintenance after a fire,
which, in itself, is natural, but which we (the government) strive
to prevent (which is debatable, I agree, whether that is sound
land management policy).

The geology out here is a geology of landslides. Period. With or
without man, the landslides will continue forever (until the land
is flattened into a muddy plain).

So, I'll try to gracefully beg out, after having explained my gut
feeling - but - in the same breath - saying very clearly that I have
never researched the subject of fire-related landslides - so - I had
opined merely my internal feelings based only on gut feeling and zero
research into fire-related deforestation effects on landslide clustering
and/or intensity in California.

PS: I saw a dozen (or more) small landslides just this week, here
in the mountains above the Silicon Valley, and there hasn't been a
major fire in these parts since the 1980's. Landslides are normal
and natural out here. I see them every single day. The trucks
park along the side of the road, scraping them away every single
time it rains.

Danny D. wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:06:03 +0000:

The trucks
park along the side of the road, scraping them away every single
time it rains.

Here is a picture of the roadcrew trucks, parked overnight, where
they perform periodic maintenance on the road just before and during
the rainy season:
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7470/1...e584e5bf_b.jpg

They keep pulling that bucket loader off the line to scrape some
landslide off a road here and there all over the place.

If I get a chance, I'll snap some pictures of (small) landslides that
happened just yesterday in the rain as there must be a half dozen
of them (small, of course) in my commute into town, as I recall.

"Danny D." wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

But, to just answer the "why" I was saying that, is that I don't
believe mudslides are, in general, caused by the lack of vegetation
that results from the lack of vegetation maintenance after a fire

I agree. The hills are made of dried mud and when enough rain gets to the
innards, they slide. It's not just the surface, it's the whole damn hill
that "melts" away. At best ground vegetation creates a thin surface skin on
the top of these mud piles that resists light rain erosion but when you get
enough water into the mix it's "there she blows!"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ology-science/

Mudslides occur after water rapidly saturates the ground on a slope, such
as during a heavy rainfall. According to O'Connor, it doesn't take high
relief in the topography to create a slide. Rather, it just takes a pull of
gravity strong enough to bring down material that is made fluid enough by
water. - Strategies to decrease the risk of mudslides include draining water
off hillsides, armoring the bases of hills so they are not undercut by
rivers, and "loading the toe," says O'Connor. In the case of "loading the
toe," engineers put heavy mass, such as large rocks, at the base of a hill
to try to anchor the slope and prevent it from coming loose.

They note that one sign of an impending mudslide is trees tilting. If a
huge tree's root system can't stabilize a hillside, it's pretty doubtful
that ground cover of any sort is really going to stop a huge mudslide.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:04:22 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Frank wrote, on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:43:15 -0500:

I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.

It's worse than that.

At least here,

Where is 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
were proven).

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.

I never said mankind cause mudslides, and it doesn't. . The fires
usuallly started by lightning burn away the plants and the rain causes
mudslides.

Mankind is powerless to stop these
landslides.

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?

Mankind is also very stupid for putting houses on top
of cliffs which are doomed to be at the bottom of the cliff some
day.

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!

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.
The problem with your theory is it helps a bit but does not/can not
stop the slides. Vegetation can stabilize the top1 to 5 feet over a
period of 5 to 100 years. It takes a LONG time to get the roots down
over a foot.
The bigger problem is there is virtually NO bedrock in those hills.
They are essentially "silt dunes", sitting on a slanted table. When
they get saturated to below the root web they just turn to soup and
start to ooze. Eventually the ooze turns into a full-scale slip and
the relatively stable root-web turns into a "magic carpet" and slides
down the hill, taking everyting in it, on it, and in front of it,
along for the ride towards the Pacific.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 08:36:36 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

micky wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 01:04:22 -0500:

All this background information is interesting, really, but it distracts
from the question of whether the homeowner do or hire someone to do
replanting.

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.
You are right in that generally the regrowth comes from the root
system remaining below the ground after the fire, along with seeds
released by the heat of the fire (certain pines, and I believe
redwoods, cannot reseed without fire).
The biggest problem in California is people are building homes where
no person in their right mind would consider building anything due to
the instability of the geological formations underlying the whole
area. Matthew 7:24-27 repeats what was even back then considered to be
solid well-known knowledge:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:22:07 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

If I get a chance, I'll snap some pictures of (small) landslides that
happened just yesterday in the rain as there must be a half dozen
of them (small, of course) in my commute into town, as I recall.

Please do post them. This is interesting to someone who lives in the
rural southeast.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 12/13/2014 2:02 AM, Todd wrote:
On 12/12/2014 09:35 AM, Reggie wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, December 12, 2014 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 12/12/2014 1:33 AM, micky wrote:
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
everything.

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?


I heard that when land was developed for housing, plants were removed
whose root systems had stabilized the land. Ground gets real wet and
mud slides occur where they did not occur before.

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.



Ain't that the truth. :'(



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.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 01:33:24 -0500, micky
wrote:

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
everything.

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?

Yes, kudzu can become a nuisance. Yet, planting
would go a long way towards stabilizing the land.
If the residents took to keeping goats as pets
that might slow down the kudzu from taking over
the world. Besides kudzu can be used as a food
and fiber source for human use.

Danny D. wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:57:18 +0000:

For reference, bear in mind that Phoenix and Morristown NJ both
had mountains *taller* than the Himalayas, more than once!

Here's are a few references for the mountains in NJ/NY/PA being
*taller* than the Himalayas, if anyone cares:
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_tall_we...ins_originally
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=591920
http://unofficialnetworks.com/2012/1...tall-himalayas

The highest point in all of NJ is now about 1,800 feet, so erosion
took off miles of height (which is why the continental shelf pile of mud
is so large, even 60 miles out from the east coast of the United States).

Think about it this way.
a) Asia is huge, India is pretty big.
b) When they crash, you get big mountains.

A) North America is huge, Africa is huge.
B) When they crash, you get even bigger mountains.

It's my understanding that the driving record of Arizona (which used to
be nearer to the edge of the continent) is as bad as that of the east coast.

Erosion occurs without man's intervention, where *miles* of sediments
are washed down the mountains into the oceans or onto the desert plains.

If man puts a house on top of a cliff, that house is doomed,
just as much as every lake every dammed is doomed to silt up unless
dredged constantly.

CRNG wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:56:19 -0600:

Please do post them.
This is interesting to someone who lives in the rural southeast.

I had forgotten about this request, so, to update you, here is
a (very) small mudslide on the side of the road (which is common):
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7580/1...6c5af477_b.jpg

These slides are countless, all along the roadsides, after every
rainfall:
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7475/1...307f3b3b_b.jpg

The road crews drive up and down all day, clearing them up. Here
is a representative picture of what I mean when I say the entire
mountain is just a 3,000 foot tall hill of mud, with a road
carved out on top, and houses dotting the sides ...
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7485/1...a13ef186_b.jpg

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:23:35 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

CRNG wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:56:19 -0600:

Please do post them.
This is interesting to someone who lives in the rural southeast.

I had forgotten about this request, so, to update you, here is
a (very) small mudslide on the side of the road (which is common):
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7580/1...6c5af477_b.jpg

Very interesting. Thanks.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:03:49 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:23:35 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

CRNG wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:56:19 -0600:

Please do post them.
This is interesting to someone who lives in the rural southeast.

I had forgotten about this request, so, to update you, here is
a (very) small mudslide on the side of the road (which is common):
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7580/1...6c5af477_b.jpg

Very interesting. Thanks.

These types of "mud slides" happen in the east - TN, KY, GA...

Metal screen is used to support the soil, chicken wire so to speak.
Retains the rocks and mud. Like DOT puts a wire screen cloth on the
mountain edge in known dangerous locations.

Red clay dirt roads, mud on the tires. California isn't special

Oren wrote, on Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:33:10 -0800:

Metal screen is used to support the soil, chicken wire so to speak.
Retains the rocks and mud. Like DOT puts a wire screen cloth on the
mountain edge in known dangerous locations.

Hi Oren,
I agree. These metal and concrete "screens" are all over the place.
But mainly on the major roads.

These "side" roads have 10 to 40 foot tall "walls of mud" on the
uphill side, and it would cost far more than anyone is willing to
pay to put the screens everywhere.

So, we just deal with the mudslides. Every single time it rains.
Or even when it doesn't rain.
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7475/1...307f3b3b_b.jpg

My main point was that, when you put a house on a hill that is
essentially 3,000 feet of mud, there is nothing man is going to
do to prevent landslides.

Fire or not. Landscaping or not. There will be landslides.
Entire towns are built on landslides out here.
It's part of the topography.

Danny D. wrote, on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:27:34 +0000:

Fire or not. Landscaping or not. There will be landslides.
Entire towns are built on landslides out here.
It's part of the topography.

For example, what's the chance of saving this tree right at
the edge of a bend in the road on this mountain of mud?
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7501/1...da580cc9_b.jpg

That picture was taken from my car as I was driving, where
the road curves to the right just under that tree.

Everything here on the mountain is destined to be washed into
the San Francisco Bay, over time. It's natural. Fire or not.
Landscaping or not. Re-vegetation or not.

On 2014-12-18, Danny D. wrote:

Everything here on the mountain is destined to be washed into
the San Francisco Bay, over time. It's natural. Fire or not.
Landscaping or not. Re-vegetation or not.

Bingo!

CA is destined to burn/drought/rain/flood, over and over again.
That's its natural state. That our species thinks it can control
these forces w/o consequence will eventually lead to our demise.

nb

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:33:10 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:03:49 -0600, CRNG
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:23:35 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

CRNG wrote, on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:56:19 -0600:

Please do post them.
This is interesting to someone who lives in the rural southeast.

I had forgotten about this request, so, to update you, here is
a (very) small mudslide on the side of the road (which is common):
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7580/1...6c5af477_b.jpg

Very interesting. Thanks.

These types of "mud slides" happen in the east - TN, KY, GA...

Metal screen is used to support the soil, chicken wire so to speak.
Retains the rocks and mud. Like DOT puts a wire screen cloth on the
mountain edge in known dangerous locations.

Red clay dirt roads, mud on the tires. California isn't special
Except in the east there is some rock in the mix. In California it
is just pure MUD - so even the screan doesn't help much.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:00:01 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

Danny D. wrote, on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:27:34 +0000:

Fire or not. Landscaping or not. There will be landslides.
Entire towns are built on landslides out here.
It's part of the topography.

For example, what's the chance of saving this tree right at
the edge of a bend in the road on this mountain of mud?
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7501/1...da580cc9_b.jpg

That picture was taken from my car as I was driving, where
the road curves to the right just under that tree.

Everything here on the mountain is destined to be washed into
the San Francisco Bay, over time. It's natural. Fire or not.
Landscaping or not. Re-vegetation or not.
Not a snowballs chance in -- southern California.

clare wrote, on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:40:06 -0500:

Not a snowballs chance in -- southern California.

In a funny way, that's not actually true.

Remember, the Salinian Block is actually a huge piece of rock
which has moved about 300 or so miles, from around Los Angeles,
up along the coast, toward northern California (and it's still on
its journey to the Aleutians), at a rate of about two
inches per year along the San Andreas Fault.

So, it can happen. But it will be a few hundred million years
when/if it does...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:31:55 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

clare wrote, on Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:40:06 -0500:

Not a snowballs chance in -- southern California.

In a funny way, that's not actually true.

Remember, the Salinian Block is actually a huge piece of rock
which has moved about 300 or so miles, from around Los Angeles,
up along the coast, toward northern California (and it's still on
its journey to the Aleutians), at a rate of about two
inches per year along the San Andreas Fault.

So, it can happen. But it will be a few hundred million years
when/if it does...
And you think that tree will survive until then?? Like I said - not a
snowball's chance -----