Posted on November 24 at 9:06 a.m.

There is proabably no need to apply the hydro-mulch aerially. This application can be done from the ground quickly and effeciently. Because there is no need for the airplanes, the additional money can be more wisely spent on applying a better solution than what was sprayed on the Gap fire. On the Gap fire, a low grade tackifier was used (guar). There are much for effective products readily available that should be used.

On City, County Eyeing Flood Prevention in Sycamore Canyon

Posted on September 12 at 3:54 p.m.

A major concern regarding the hydromulching is the tackifier they have decided to use. The forrest service will be using a product that is very ineffective. The guar-gum based tickifier will not hold up to the rains that will come. Unfortunatley, the County of Santa Barbara might follow the lead of the forrest service and apply the same thing. From what I read, guar-gum based tackifiers are only about 78% effective after only 2 inches of rain. I know there are other products out there and available that can be mixed with the hydromulch such as a product called EarthGuard, that can make the application far superior. From a study I’ve read, EarthGuard is 99.5% effective.
The forrest service and SB County are spending nearly 10 million dollars for the aerial hydro-mulch. In my opinion, they are wasting their money, endangering lives and the environment by using only a Guar-gum tackifier. These agencies are not doing their due dilligence in finding out what kind of erosion control products are best for this situation. Hopefully they will reaccess what they are going to spray on the burned hillsides and use something that is actually going to work.

On Officials Survey Fire Damage, Plan for Risks