On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:51:59 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> >>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
> >>>
> >> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
> >> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
> >>
> >
> > It was touch & go for a while.
> >
> I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
> reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.
>
> Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
> future risks?

It is surrounded by national forest, so they're doing whatever the
powers that be have decided is supposed to happen fires in a
national forest. I think how forests are managed is still
controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.
Unfortunately, the Rim Fire area was too close to Hetch Hechy,
Yosemite Valley and other populated areas to let it burn out
naturally. Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2013...-forest-fires/

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=711
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/0...m-fire-update/
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...mite-explainer

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.