Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Hillside erosion worsening in California due to wildfires and intense rain

News Feed
Saturday, August 31, 2024

Over the last three decades, California has seen increasing erosion after major wildfires — a phenomenon that not only endangers water resources and ecosystems, but is also likely to worsen with climate change, according to researchers. A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey documented a tenfold increase in post-fire hillside erosion in Northern California from the late 1980s to the 2010s, with the majority of the largest sediment-producing fires occurring in the last decade. This erosion causes a number of problems. When heavy rains scour charred hillsides, debris flows can choke rivers and streams, depriving fish of oxygen. Sediment runoff can also fill reservoirs and take up valuable water storage space, damage flood control infrastructure and threaten nearby communities vulnerable to flash flooding. The research team noted that erosion after wildfires has accelerated across the state since 1984, with the northern half of the state recording the most noticeable change.“In Northern California, we really see this huge increase [in post-fire erosion] from the first decade to the second to the third to the fourth,” said Helen Dow, a research geologist with USGS and the study’s lead author. “There’s just a large rise in sediment, both in mass ... and then also when we look at yield, being the mass per area.”By incorporating detailed modeling and field-based observations, the research team quantified soil and sediment loads from erosion between 1984 to 2021 for every year following a large wildfire, which the scientists classified as larger than 25,000 acres. This method was able to put a figure on an issue that ecologists, forest managers and water conservationists have long wondered about. “It’s not surprising ... but it’s good to see it quantified by USGS,” said Glen Martin, a spokesperson for the environmental nonprofit California Water Impact Network.“It points out what the bigger problem is, which is, California — your water supplies, your reservoirs, your fisheries are already on the brink, and these catastrophic fires are going to push it over for a variety of reasons,” said Martin, who was not involved in the research.Several studies have already shown that wildfires are growing larger and more intense due to climate change. The same forces are also increasing the frequency of more extreme rainstorms across the state, leading to more episodes of “weather whiplash.” The USGS paper, which was published recently in the Journal of Geophysical Research, found that 57% of the state’s post-fire erosion occurred upstream of reservoirs, “indicating a growing risk to water security.” Reservoirs are a key component of the state’s fragile water system, but the influx of sediment can both decrease a basin’s capacity and degrade its water quality.“These results indicate increasing pressure on water resources from post-fire erosion with ongoing climate change,” study authors wrote.Martin called the rise in erosion part of an “unvirtuous cycle” of more fires, more eroded soil, which leads to more infrastructure failures and, ultimately, less water.It “has huge consequences for everything from fisheries to water supply, and this study confirms that,” Martin said. USGS researchers expect that erosion after wildfires will only continue to increase across the state without comprehensive mitigation efforts, but Dow said documenting the extent of the problem is an important step for state and federal officials to look for interventions. “Knowing this is a problem that’s worsening in Northern California, and having an idea of the size of the problem both in Northern and Southern California, might inform how agencies think about fire,” Dow said. “What needs to be done is increased fuels control on both public and private lands,” Martin said, “so that when we do get fires, they aren’t absolutely devastating, burning down to mineral earth, turning the landscape into essentially a moonscape.” Martin said fuel control could include include prescribed burns and mechanical thinning, or the targeted removal of certain trees. California is already aware of the devastating and widespread effects erosion and debris flows can have following large fires. In Montecito, heavy rainfall after the 2018 Thomas fire unleashed an avalanche of mud and debris that ravaged the town, killing 23 people and destroying 130 homes. In 2022, a mass fish die-off occurred in the Klamath River after successive landslides dumped fire-scarred soil and debris into the watershed, dropping dissolved oxygen levels for several hours. Sediment buildup has also plagued Devil’s Gate Dam in Pasadena. Excess erosion has also clogged countless culverts, blocked roadways and buried infrastructure, increasing flood and safety concerns. This year, the Park fire, which burned through Mill and Deer creeks in the Central Valley, has threatened what Martin called some of last strongholds for endangered spring-run chinook salmon. He said heavy rains there could hurt any progress wildlife officials have made to support the fish population. “Our salmon are already decimated by excessive water diversions; when you add this on top of it, it essentially makes it almost impossible for these runs to come back,” Martin said. Dow said the team’s research only took into account erosion within the first year after a wildfire, so it probably underestimates the full extent of the problem.The study was released alongside another USGS study that measured sediment in the Carmel River along California’s Central Coast. It concluded that after wildfires and extreme rain, sediment in the watershed greatly increased compared with long-term averages. With the state facing an array of other major water issues, combating post-fire erosion through better land conservation and forest management is necessary, Martin said, but not simple.“That’s going to take time, and it’s more than that: It’s going to take a lot of public will and money,” he said. “It’s a crisis situation. ... It’s only going to get worse until we really get serious about addressing it.”

In the last three decades, erosion that follows wildfires has accelerated across California as climate change continues to intensify both fires and rainstorms, according to new research.

Over the last three decades, California has seen increasing erosion after major wildfires — a phenomenon that not only endangers water resources and ecosystems, but is also likely to worsen with climate change, according to researchers.

A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey documented a tenfold increase in post-fire hillside erosion in Northern California from the late 1980s to the 2010s, with the majority of the largest sediment-producing fires occurring in the last decade.

This erosion causes a number of problems. When heavy rains scour charred hillsides, debris flows can choke rivers and streams, depriving fish of oxygen. Sediment runoff can also fill reservoirs and take up valuable water storage space, damage flood control infrastructure and threaten nearby communities vulnerable to flash flooding.

The research team noted that erosion after wildfires has accelerated across the state since 1984, with the northern half of the state recording the most noticeable change.

“In Northern California, we really see this huge increase [in post-fire erosion] from the first decade to the second to the third to the fourth,” said Helen Dow, a research geologist with USGS and the study’s lead author. “There’s just a large rise in sediment, both in mass ... and then also when we look at yield, being the mass per area.”

By incorporating detailed modeling and field-based observations, the research team quantified soil and sediment loads from erosion between 1984 to 2021 for every year following a large wildfire, which the scientists classified as larger than 25,000 acres. This method was able to put a figure on an issue that ecologists, forest managers and water conservationists have long wondered about.

“It’s not surprising ... but it’s good to see it quantified by USGS,” said Glen Martin, a spokesperson for the environmental nonprofit California Water Impact Network.

“It points out what the bigger problem is, which is, California — your water supplies, your reservoirs, your fisheries are already on the brink, and these catastrophic fires are going to push it over for a variety of reasons,” said Martin, who was not involved in the research.

Several studies have already shown that wildfires are growing larger and more intense due to climate change. The same forces are also increasing the frequency of more extreme rainstorms across the state, leading to more episodes of “weather whiplash.”

The USGS paper, which was published recently in the Journal of Geophysical Research, found that 57% of the state’s post-fire erosion occurred upstream of reservoirs, “indicating a growing risk to water security.” Reservoirs are a key component of the state’s fragile water system, but the influx of sediment can both decrease a basin’s capacity and degrade its water quality.

“These results indicate increasing pressure on water resources from post-fire erosion with ongoing climate change,” study authors wrote.

Martin called the rise in erosion part of an “unvirtuous cycle” of more fires, more eroded soil, which leads to more infrastructure failures and, ultimately, less water.

It “has huge consequences for everything from fisheries to water supply, and this study confirms that,” Martin said.

USGS researchers expect that erosion after wildfires will only continue to increase across the state without comprehensive mitigation efforts, but Dow said documenting the extent of the problem is an important step for state and federal officials to look for interventions.

“Knowing this is a problem that’s worsening in Northern California, and having an idea of the size of the problem both in Northern and Southern California, might inform how agencies think about fire,” Dow said.

“What needs to be done is increased fuels control on both public and private lands,” Martin said, “so that when we do get fires, they aren’t absolutely devastating, burning down to mineral earth, turning the landscape into essentially a moonscape.”

Martin said fuel control could include include prescribed burns and mechanical thinning, or the targeted removal of certain trees.

California is already aware of the devastating and widespread effects erosion and debris flows can have following large fires.

In Montecito, heavy rainfall after the 2018 Thomas fire unleashed an avalanche of mud and debris that ravaged the town, killing 23 people and destroying 130 homes.

In 2022, a mass fish die-off occurred in the Klamath River after successive landslides dumped fire-scarred soil and debris into the watershed, dropping dissolved oxygen levels for several hours.

Sediment buildup has also plagued Devil’s Gate Dam in Pasadena. Excess erosion has also clogged countless culverts, blocked roadways and buried infrastructure, increasing flood and safety concerns.

This year, the Park fire, which burned through Mill and Deer creeks in the Central Valley, has threatened what Martin called some of last strongholds for endangered spring-run chinook salmon. He said heavy rains there could hurt any progress wildlife officials have made to support the fish population.

“Our salmon are already decimated by excessive water diversions; when you add this on top of it, it essentially makes it almost impossible for these runs to come back,” Martin said.

Dow said the team’s research only took into account erosion within the first year after a wildfire, so it probably underestimates the full extent of the problem.

The study was released alongside another USGS study that measured sediment in the Carmel River along California’s Central Coast. It concluded that after wildfires and extreme rain, sediment in the watershed greatly increased compared with long-term averages.

With the state facing an array of other major water issues, combating post-fire erosion through better land conservation and forest management is necessary, Martin said, but not simple.

“That’s going to take time, and it’s more than that: It’s going to take a lot of public will and money,” he said. “It’s a crisis situation. ... It’s only going to get worse until we really get serious about addressing it.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Indigenous People Reflect on the Meaning of Their Participation in COP30 Climate Talks

At United Nations climate talks billed widely as having a special focus on Indigenous people, those people themselves have mixed feelings about whether the highlight reel matches reality

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference. As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard. Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world. Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuels Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.” Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday's final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed. Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that "don't stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.“They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It's the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy," Johns said.“What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples," Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn't think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn't believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.Sônia Guajajara, Brazil's minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently. “It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said. Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarity While the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue. When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.“After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility."The meaning of protest at this COP wasn't just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other. On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.“We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside. Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Takeaways From the Outcome of UN Climate Talks in Brazil

After two weeks of negotiations, this year’s United Nations climate talks have ended with what critics are calling a weak compromise

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — After two weeks of negotiations, this year's United Nations climate talks ended Saturday with a compromise that some criticized as weak and others called progress.The deal finalized at the COP30 conference pledges more money to help countries adapt to climate change, but lacks explicit plans to transition away from the fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas that heat the planet.But that disappointment is mixed with a few wins and the hope for countries to make more progress next year.Here's what you need to know about the outcome. Leaders tried to nail down specifics on fighting climate change Leaders have been working on how to fight the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea level rise, for a decade. To do that, every country had the homework of writing up their own national climate plans and then reconvened this month to see if it was enough.Brazil, host of the climate conference known as COP30, was trying to get them to cooperate on the toughest issues like climate-related trade restrictions, funding for climate solutions, national climate-fighting plans and more transparency on measuring those plans' progress. More than 80 countries tried to introduce a detailed guide to phase out fossil fuels over the next several decades. There were other to-do items on topics including deforestation, gender and farming. Countries reached what critics called a weak compromise Nations agreed to triple the amount of money promised to help the vulnerable countries adapt to climate change. But they will take five more years to do it. Some vulnerable island countries said they were happy about the financial support. But the final document didn't include a road map away from fossil fuels, angering many.After the agreement was reached, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said Brazil would take an extra step and write their own road map. Not all countries signed up to this, but those on board will meet next year to specifically talk about the fossil fuel phase out. It would not carry the same weight as something agreed to at the conference.Also included in the package were smaller agreements on energy grids and biofuels. Responses ranged from happy to angry “Given what we expected, what we came out with, we were happy,” said Ilana Seid, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.But others felt discouraged. Heated exchanges took place during the conference’s final meeting as countries snipped at each other about the fossil fuel plan.“I will be brutally honest: The COP and the U.N. system are not working for you. They have never really worked for you. And today, they are failing you at a historic scale,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, a negotiator for Panama.Jiwoh Abdulai, Sierra Leone’s environment and climate change minister said: “COP30 has not delivered everything Africa asked for, but it has moved the needle.” He added: "This is a floor, not a ceiling.”The real outcome of this year’s climate talks will be judged on “how quickly these words turn into real projects that protect lives and livelihoods,” he said. Talks set against the Amazon rainforest Participants experienced the Amazon’s extreme heat and humidity and heavy rains that flooded walkways. Organizers who chose Belem, on the edge of the rainforest, as the host city had intended for countries to experience firsthand what was at stake with climate change, and take bold action to stop it.But afterward, critics said the deal shows how hard it is to find global cooperation on issues that affect everyone, most of all people in poverty, Indigenous people, women and children around the world.“At the start of this COP, there was this high level of ambition. We started with a bang, but we ended with a whimper of disappointment," said former Philippine negotiator Jasper Inventor, now at Greenpeace International. Indigenous people, civil society and youth One of the nicknames for the climate talks in Brazil was the “Indigenous peoples' COP.” Yet some in those groups said they had to fight to be heard. Protesters from Indigenous groups twice disrupted the conference to demand a bigger seat at the table. While Indigenous people's rights weren't officially on the agenda, Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said so far she is happy with the text because for the first time it includes a paragraph mentioning Indigenous rights.She supported countries speaking up on procedural issues because that’s how multilateralism works. “It’s kind of chaotic, but from our perspective, it’s kind of good that some countries have a reaction,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.