Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know drought means wildfire risk, but its not the case 100% of the time. Areas that are somewhat humid such as northern CA and the PNW get more fires than the dry southwest it seems. Given your preferences of where to live , which type of area would you rather live in between the 2?
Afraid I don't quite understand the question. A drought is a period of unusually low precipitation (for a given area) and it can happen anywhere. Desert can experience a drought, so can rain forest. Droughts come and go as weather patterns change. Whereas wildfire risk is different as it involves fuel loads, topology, and other factors including drought and current weather conditions.
Are you asking about places with abundant water with wildfire risk vs. arid areas with scarce water but low wildfire risk?
What does a drought area mean? Everywhere in the US can experience drought. It’s not limited to places that are drier. For example, very little of Arizona is in drought right now. Less than Georgia or Michigan.
Afraid I don't quite understand the question. A drought is a period of unusually low precipitation (for a given area) and it can happen anywhere. Desert can experience a drought, so can rain forest. Droughts come and go as weather patterns change. Whereas wildfire risk is different as it involves fuel loads, topology, and other factors including drought and current weather conditions.
Are you asking about places with abundant water with wildfire risk vs. arid areas with scarce water but low wildfire risk?
Native Southern Californian here who has lived with both drought (which as we know, does not mean simply a low average rainfall) and wildfire risk for my entire life.
I hate them both, but wildfires are more scary than scarce water. You learn to cope with water restrictions; that becomes second nature. You never get used to seeing a giant plume of smoke rising up from the hills behind your house and worrying about whether you'll have to evacuate and might lose everything.
So I would pick drought as preferable. And no, I have no desire to relocate.
What does a drought area mean? Everywhere in the US can experience drought. It’s not limited to places that are drier. For example, very little of Arizona is in drought right now. Less than Georgia or Michigan.
A "drought" in Georgia and Michigan means something very different than what it means in a place like Arizona. They are still getting 4-5 times more annual precipitation than AZ.
I'd personally take a place in the upper midwest like Wisconsin or Michigan. Droughts really aren't a concern. Neither are wildfires lol.
Then I would say it depends on how well risks are managed.
Wildfire risk can be mitigated with good forest management (prescribed burns, thinning, etc.) and by being careful about where you live. E.g. most urban areas of the PNW aren't high fire danger because they aren't in the forest (low fuel loads) and there's defensible space between wilderness and the city. Whereas living in the woods or the Willdland Urban Interface (WUI) is always going to be very high fire risk and one just has to accept that wildfire will happen and have a plan for getting out safely.
Like wildfire, the issue of water in arid areas can be mitigated with good planning: investing in water infrastructure, conservation (low flow fixtures, xeriscaping, etc.), and good rainwater management. But absent these things, communities can get into serious water crisis like what's happening in Rio Verde which is essentially the result of growth without planning and investing in water (which is expensive).
I wouldn't worry about living in either type of area as long as the proper planning and investment is in place.
However, living in a high risk fire area that has not taken appropriate mitigation measures is a hard pass for me. Places like small towns in dense, dry forest/brush... way too much risk, and very high insurance premiums. Instead, I'll live in the city and visit the forest for recreation.
Similarly, I would not choose to live in an area without a secure clean water supply.
But if I had to choose between the two, I'd take the latter. Better to haul water than have the entire neighborhood burn to the ground.
Native Southern Californian here who has lived with both drought (which as we know, does not mean simply a low average rainfall) and wildfire risk for my entire life.
I hate them both, but wildfires are more scary than scarce water. You learn to cope with water restrictions; that becomes second nature. You never get used to seeing a giant plume of smoke rising up from the hills behind your house and worrying about whether you'll have to evacuate and might lose everything.
So I would pick drought as preferable. And no, I have no desire to relocate.
The “drought” would go away for good if California built more reservoirs (and repaired the old ones), but that’s a whole other discussion.
It’s a double edged sword right now with all the rain we’ve gotten lately. It’s looking like Hawaii around here, but all that green grass on the hillsides turns to fuel come summer. A heavy rainy season is often followed by a bad fire season.
We have a second house in the mountains where twice we were on alert to possibly evacuate due to fire. Once was from an arsonist, and once from high powered guns shot outside of the designated gun range. Seeing the sky glow red is a bit ominous, to say the least. Everything in that house is replaceable and we have the luxury of just driving home if something bad were to happen. While I wouldn’t want to lose that house, I’m sure my attitude would be different if it was our entire life in it?
With that said give me drought. Water always flows uphill to money, and we’re not in any risk of running out no matter how much they try to scare you saying we are.
I'd personally take a place in the upper midwest like Wisconsin or Michigan. Droughts really aren't a concern. Neither are wildfires lol.
True, but no place is not without its issues? My grandparents and aunt/uncle (technically cousins) both had major damage to their houses from severe thunderstorms / tornados in Michigan. Where as I’ve never suffered anything more than a bottle falling off a shelf during an earthquake in California my whole life.
I was there for one visiting as kid when a tree went through my grandparents roof, and another on their car. My sister, cousin, and myself all were on the local news moving branches as they showed the carnage on their street. Needless to say that trip was cut short, and I forget how long, but I know it was a couple of months until they could move back in. Every summer we visited it seemed like we’d have to go into the basement at least once for one of these storms. Thankfully the only other damage in other visits was some broken fence posts/boards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
