By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During the Palisades wildfire, insufficient water pressure in fire hydrants severely hampered firefighting efforts. Three large water tanks supplying the area’s higher elevations ran dry due to exceptionally high water demand—four times the normal rate—outpacing the system’s ability to refill them. This resulted in widespread criticism of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for inadequate infrastructure and chronic underinvestment. The situation highlighted the vulnerability of the city’s water system during major emergencies, especially in hilly terrain. Twenty water tankers were deployed to assist, but access to pump stations was also hampered by the fire.
Read the original article here
Fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades ran dry during the recent wildfire, leaving firefighters struggling for water during a critical time. City officials attributed this to an overwhelming demand on the water system, a statement that, while technically correct, only scratches the surface of a much more complex issue. The simple truth is that fire hydrants themselves don’t store water; they are merely access points to the city’s water supply network. The simultaneous use of numerous hydrants during a large-scale fire like this one severely strains and depressurizes the entire system, resulting in reduced water flow, or in this case, a complete depletion of water storage tanks in the affected area. This isn’t a new problem; it’s a fundamental limitation of any water distribution system, especially one serving a densely populated area facing extreme conditions.
The sheer scale of the fire, fueled by drought conditions and strong winds, created an unprecedented demand. The volume of water needed to fight a blaze of that magnitude far exceeded the capacity of the existing infrastructure. This isn’t just about the number of hydrants; it’s about the overall water capacity of the system and its ability to handle such a surge in demand. The unique meteorological conditions created a perfect storm, with the potential to cause catastrophe for millions.
Beyond the immediate demands of firefighting, other factors contributed to the problem. Preemptive watering by residents trying to protect their properties from approaching flames further depleted the system’s resources. Similarly, the continued flow of water to burning buildings, where water service often remains active even after a structure ignites, placed additional strain on an already overtaxed network. These compounding factors exposed vulnerabilities within the system that weren’t immediately apparent. Considering that water usage is not automatically shut off during the destruction of a property, it exacerbates a situation that could have been minimized with prior consideration.
The incident highlights the complexities of managing water resources in a region prone to wildfires. The notion that there could, or should, be enough water pressure to supply every hydrant simultaneously during such an event simply isn’t realistic, given the constraints of infrastructure and economics. Building a system capable of meeting the highest conceivable demand would be incredibly costly and impractical. The reality is that there’s always a limit to what even the most robust infrastructure can handle.
While assigning blame is a natural human response, a more productive approach involves understanding the underlying limitations and developing strategies to mitigate future risks. The situation in Pacific Palisades underscores the need for comprehensive planning, including improved infrastructure, better communication and coordination between agencies, and perhaps most importantly, a realistic assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the existing water system.
The issue goes beyond just the immediate crisis response; it touches upon broader questions about resource management in a changing climate. The increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, directly linked to climate change, places unprecedented stress on existing infrastructure, pushing systems to their breaking point. The discussion surrounding water allocation highlights the potential need for further infrastructural improvements, better management of water resources, and a focus on preventative measures, such as wildfire mitigation efforts. A holistic approach to dealing with these interconnected challenges becomes ever more critical in the face of a changing climate and increased occurrences of extreme weather events.
The debate surrounding responsibility often overlooks the fundamental fact that even with extensive planning and preparation, natural disasters can still overwhelm even the most robust systems. Attributing blame to individuals or entities, while tempting, diverts attention from the necessary long-term solutions. The incident served as a stark reminder of the limitations of current infrastructure and the urgent need to adapt to the realities of a changing climate. The focus should be on enhancing preparedness, improving infrastructure, and developing strategies to mitigate risks in the face of future events, rather than simply assigning blame for an unprecedented situation.