Miscellaneous political stuff - Part 11

Just because the Forest Service has been using something for 50 years does not mean that it is the most effective or least harmful method.

www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-29/u-s-forest-service-defends-use-of-pink-wildfire-retardant

For most Californians, the sight of aircraft spewing neon pink liquid over flaming trees and brush has become a hallmark of aggressive wildfire suppression campaigns — if not a potent symbol of government’s struggle to control increasingly destructive forest fires.

But as the use of aerially delivered retardant has soared in recent years, some forest advocates say the substance does more harm than good. They claim wildfire retardant drops are expensive, ineffective and a growing source of pollution for rivers and streams.

“There’s no scientific evidence that it makes any difference in wildfire outcomes,” said forester Andy Stahl. “This is like dumping cash out of airplanes, except that it’s toxic and you can’t buy anything with it because it doesn’t work.”

But the chemical, which is also used as fertilizer, can kill aquatic life. For example, in Santa Barbara County, dozens of endangered steelhead trout were killed in Maria Ygnacio Creek during the 2009 Jesusita fire. UC Santa Barbara scientists documented elevated ammonia levels in the water and concluded the fish kill was likely due to retardant drops.

The Forest Service has dropped more than 760,000 gallons of retardant into water, both accidentally and under an agency directive that such drops are permissible if they mitigate threats to human life or public safety, according to figures the agency released last year.

While the lawsuit primarily concerns the dropping of retardant into water, the issue of whether it works as intended has also been raised in court documents.

The Forest Service has argued that a prohibition on discharges of retardant into water would impair its firefighting capabilities and jeopardize safety, doing a disservice to the public interest. The FSEE has argued however that the agency lacks evidence that aerial retardant actually accomplishes those goals.

Studies performed by Forest Service scientists have concluded that aerial retardant slows fire spread in laboratory-based and experimental fires, but that its effectiveness in the field is dependent on environmental conditions like slope, fuel type, terrain and weather.

“Aerial retardant is effective over a narrow range of conditions, and the windows of opportunity for those conditions are narrowing each year due to climate change,” said Timothy Ingalsbee, a former wildland firefighter and executive director of the nonprofit Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology, which is not involved in the lawsuit.

Retardant is most effective when used in the cool of the morning on relatively level terrain with sparse vegetation during the initial attack of small fires burning near communities, he said. Ground crews must be nearby to take advantage of the reduced rate of spread by cutting containment lines; otherwise, the fire may slow only temporarily and then keep spreading, he said.

And yet, Ingalsbee said, research has shown that retardant is often dropped in the heat of the afternoon during the extended attack of large fires burning on steep, densely forested slopes in remote areas where ground crews can’t reach, or when fire behavior is so intense that it’s too dangerous for ground crews to engage.

“The Forest Service feels pressure to do something, as much for public relations as any operational benefit,” he said. “But it’s just a big airshow.”

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02tPaaS9RbGHXcFuCJkes2qhnTiCUf73URERAvCcddqjWBUNeyxqv4PpCDm73FEVmVl&id=579515442&mibextid=qC1gEa

From Jay Kuo:
Key development in the obstruction case being investigated by Jack Smith. It’s not good news for Trump. Per WaPo:
___

In the classified documents case, federal investigators have gathered new and significant evidence that after the subpoena was delivered, Trump looked through the contents of some of the boxes of documents in his home, apparently out of a desire to keep certain things in his possession, the people familiar with the investigation said.

Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that boxes including classified material were moved from a Mar-a-Lago storage area after the subpoena was served, and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes, these people said. While Trump’s team returned some documents with classified markings in response to the subpoena, a later FBI search found more than 100 additional classified items that had not been turned over.

…

The application for court approval for that search said agents were pursuing evidence of violations of statutes including 18 USC 1519, which makes it a crime to alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal a document or tangible object “with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency.”

A key element in most obstruction cases is intent, because to bring such a charge, prosecutors have to be able to show that whatever actions were taken were done to try to hinder or block an investigation. In the Trump case, prosecutors and federal agents are trying to gather any evidence pointing to the motivation for Trump’s actions.

The Washington Post reported in October that Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, had told investigators that he moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago at the former president’s instruction after the subpoena was issued. Smith’s team has video surveillance footage corroborating that account, The Post reported, and considers the evidence significant.

In addition, the people familiar with the investigation said, authorities have another category of evidence that they consider particularly helpful as they reconstruct events from last spring: emails and texts of Molly Michael, an assistant to the former president who followed him from the White House to Florida before she eventually left that job last year. Michael’s written communications have provided investigators with a detailed understanding of the day-to-day activity at Mar-a-Lago at critical moments, these people said.

Take a look at what is happening in the NC state senate. They are seeking to have county by county representation not ratio per capita representation basically making the majority of the states residents beholden to sparsely populated rural counties.