The Los Angeles area fires, particularly those occurring in early January 2025, were to a significant extent predictable given the historical context and known environmental conditions of the region. Here’s how:

Predictability:

• Environmental Conditions: Southern California, including Los Angeles, is known for its susceptibility to wildfires due to dry vegetation, high winds (Santa Ana winds), and periods of drought. The combination of these factors was well-documented in various reports and studies, indicating a high risk for fire outbreaks during certain conditions. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has linked climate change to an increase in the severity and frequency of wildfires in the western United States, emphasizing the predictability of such events under the right conditions.
• Seasonal Patterns: Although wildfires in Southern California are generally expected from May to October, there have been instances of significant fires in other months, suggesting that the risk is not strictly seasonal but rather weather-dependent. Governor Gavin Newsom’s statement that there’s “no fire season, it’s fire year” underscores this unpredictability within predictability.

Government Failures:

• Resource Allocation: There were clear criticisms regarding the preparedness and response of local governments. Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone noted that the area was not adequately prepared for the scale of the disaster, with a lack of sufficient firefighters and resources to manage multiple fires simultaneously. This was exacerbated by the timing of the fires which coincided with extremely unfavorable weather conditions.
• Infrastructure and Policy: Issues like empty fire hydrants and inadequate water supply for firefighting were highlighted, suggesting failures in infrastructure maintenance or planning. Posts on X also pointed out the lack of fire prevention policies, insufficient brush clearance, and budget cuts to the fire department, which could have played roles in exacerbating the disaster.
• Response and Communication: The response to the fires involved challenges like evacuation orders not being issued in time or being communicated effectively to all residents, which led to significant injuries and deaths. The communication from city officials was also criticized, especially when Mayor Karen Bass was not in the city during the onset of the fires.

Methods of Dealing with Fires:

• Prevention and Preparedness: The predictability of such fires calls for proactive measures like regular brush clearance in fire-prone areas, robust water supply systems for fire hydrants, and community education on fire safety. The city had programs in place, but their implementation or effectiveness seemed lacking based on the outcomes of these fires.
• Response: Immediate response mechanisms, including evacuation procedures, should be streamlined and communicated effectively. The scale of the disaster overwhelmed local resources, indicating a need for better inter-agency coordination and possibly more regional or federal support agreements in place before such events.

In summary, while the fires were predictable given the environmental conditions, the severity and impact were dramatically increased by apparent governmental failures in preparedness, resource allocation, and emergency response. The situation in Los Angeles highlighted systemic issues that need addressing to mitigate future risks.