Controlled burns were the de facto method of land management in that portion of the world for millennia. I'd be curious what a modern incarnation of that would look like.

It'd be a much more organized and planned version of what firefighters do already, including dumping retardants from the air and preparing infrastructure ahead of the fire. Mostly they set up firebreaks [1] and distribute fire fighters around the perimeter to clean up any embers that cross them. The whole process is much easier when there isn't a fire bearing down on them. In California they'd also use the DOT goat squadron [2] which is very effective at stripping any vegetation in an area. If done on a regular basis, semi-permanent firebreaks will form (like a well trodden trail) making it a really efficient process.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak

[2] https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-popular-li...

Most forests in California are state or federal owned. But private landowners are allowed to do controlled burns.[0]

[0]https://calpba.org/

>at least those megafires will decrease the likelihood of fires in the comming years.

I wouldn't be so sure. It looks like a lot of the fires don't wipe out the fuel load, a lot of burnable stuff grows back quickly, it doesn't take all that many years for everything to grow back.

Living in one of the uber-flammable areas, it's funny how fast all of the plants grow. This entire locality is (2nd (or 3rd (or 4th))) generation trees.

yes, they will. There is a comparison of west-side fires in mexico compared to california (close by areas) where in california every fire is immediately fought, where as in mexico there are more frequent fires, and in general they are less destructive. Sorry but no time to search for the sources now, had it back in school... Thats what I was refering to, a fire all 5 years still has less material than one every 10, no matter the growth rate

socal and NorCal have vastly flora, and the mega fires are all in the North. I wouldn't expect Mexico to have fires like NorCal no matter what the government did.

I think the issue is that when you're looking for "less severe weather settings" you have limited options - California is in a megadrought. Meanwhile, China has invested heavily in weather modification and is reportedly conjuring up rain storms all while weather modification science here in the US is treated like alchemy.

> all while weather modification science here in the US is treated like alchemy

I don't fully agree with this statement, it's more that you're not just affecting your rainfall, but neighbors as well. As we speak, 8 of the Western states in the US are performing scientific trials together.

There's no hard data that shows exactly how much weather modification actually works. Some data shows 5 to 15% increased snowfall, but that's just statistical analysis. Once we get hard data that shows the cost/benefit, you're likely to see more weather modification efforts (e.g. how many dollars per acre-foot of water? Is this cheaper or more expensive than pipelines, or drinking water reservoirs? What would a budget look like for bolstering our agriculture? Can a state government budget a few million for the next year due to an anticipated reduction in rainfall? How many million would we need? What's the human and ecological (particularly beneficial bacteria and algae) impacts of being exposed to AgI?)

We also don't know how wide-scale it works. Yes, China can seed clouds to reduce smog to have blue skies for PRC meetings in Beijing, but can it work on the scale of say, an entire mountain range? Or the agricultural area of an entire state? Can't say. It's only been in the last few years that we've gotten RADAR and compute that's capable of analyzing our experiments.

Also another thing, you can generate precipitation, but even weather modification technology can't overcome a drought. If you have a high pressure system (like the one currently sitting over most of the West US at the moment) you're stuck with dry skies.

> California is in a megadrought

California has an agriculture problem.

* Since 1987, the United States has been the largest producer of almonds worldwide. The success of the California crop in seizing the No. 1 rank in world almond production is due in large part to the use of irrigation and mechanization, resulting in higher yields and cost effectiveness.

The US produces 10x more almonds than number two on the global biggest exporters list: over 2m tons/year, #2 on the list is Spain with 200k tons. California is the #1 producer of almonds in the world. It takes 1.1 gallon of water to grow one(!!!) almond.

https://www.atlasbig.com/en-in/countries-by-almond-productio..., https://keepcaliforniafarming.org/produce/california-almonds..., https://www.paesta.psu.edu/podcast/how-much-water-does-it-re...

Look at page 4: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/2017-18AgExports.pdf

Pistachios, walnuts, dairy, wine, beer, kiwis(!), avocados, grapes, rice!

>California is in a megadrought.

To be fair, we had big, honkin', town-killin' fires back when it rained and snowed more than average for decades.

It's hard to tell how much is due to drought, how much to a shift from snow to rain, how much is home development, how much is homeless people torching off areas (more than you'd like to think).

The drought began in about 1999. The wet years in the two decades since then have not changed the drought. Soil moisture levels across the SW of the US are at their lowest levels in 1200 years.

So, maybe you're referring to an earlier period, in which case, cool.

The really threatening fires we had here were in 1988, 1994, 1997, 1999.