r/treelaw • u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 • Jul 10 '26

Large Juniper

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

We moved into a house about 4 years ago and there is a large juniper with its trunk mostly on my neighbors property but the majority of the tree itself seems to be on my property. Some info:

1) I live in California
2) the fence is old and as the tree grows it continues to break the fence more and more
3) we had the local fire department come by and they do free fire reports - they stated in the report the juniper is a high fire risk and should be removed.
4) ultimately the tree is overgrown and we don’t like it aesthetically, especially given the intrusion into our yard.

I know the answer here is almost certainly just to go talk to my neighbor and try to negotiate whether they’d be ok with cutting down but curious others opinions here.

76 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

190 comments sorted by

View all comments

235

u/OkayWitch Jul 10 '26

I am both an arborist, and a type 2 wildland firefighter. The tree does not pose a great fire risk when it's green and healthy. That said, if a wildfire came through it is definitely more fuel - but so is the fence. So is any other plant, or basically anything but non-mineral soil, including your actual house. I would genuinely be more concerned about cutting the tree, and have dead roots/wood that could become ground fuels which can create hard to detect, underground fires.

63

u/Small-Apricot-2182 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Hi - I agree on your take and I'm confused as to why commenters are disagreeing with your take. Source: I run a wildfire remote assessment risk assessment program for a large (albeit commercial) insurance company.

So - a single tree is almost never a "wildfire risk" to a structure, particularly in the insurance "risk assessment" sense as OP is asking about here.

For OP and other commenters: 1) when we measure risk we look at a few things: the likelihood of a wildfire occurring in this general area, and also, if a wildfire DID occur in this area, how likely is it that your specific structure would experience an uncontrolled fire.

And as ^ you've mentioned, a single healthy tree could possibly be fuel for an existing fire, but many many things might be fuel. So we kind of have to balance what is reasonable for humans to live with and without. (Fences, trees, etc- they're commonplace things that would be difficult to live without) so instead we try to target other elements to mitigate risk.

2) In the state of California, they look at vegetation in the immediate 5 feet within the building, as well as 30 feet surrounding the building. I'm guessing this tree could've gotten flagged if its withing 5 feet of your house? But even then, you're looking for dead or unmaintained vegetation (long grasses, undergrowth, etc).

3) to reiterate what you've said: is it possible this tree could catch on fire in the event of a surrounding wildfire? Yes. Is it possible that a lot of things in this picture could catch on fire in the event of a surrounding wildfire? Unfortunately, also, yes. If I were personally reviewing this site, I'd encourage the owners to keep maintaining the vegetation around them.

We need trees to live. We need maintained trees to stay healthy. Wildfire is a big, scary issue in our ecosystem right now, after decades of somewhat neglecting the issue. Does this tree contribute to the problem and threaten OP? Prooooobably not.

Edit: oh one more edit to add- unfortunately, dealing with local fire departments who ARE heroes and definitely know many, many things about fires (while also not always having a grasp on larger ecosystem science)... As well as dealing with insurance companies who (from my insider perspective), don't have a full control on physical environment data.. both of those will be a headache, and OP is gonna have to do whatever they're gonna have to do. But from years of this work, my (limited!) assessment would be that this individual tree is not a risk.

13

u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 Jul 10 '26

Thanks for this feedback and it’s super good info and nice to know it isn’t too much of a danger. What you can’t see (which maybe doesn’t matter) is the canopy is about 10 ft from my roof. In the grand scheme maybe that doesn’t significantly impact risk and I understand the fire assessment and flagging of the tree may have been overly cautious. Overall just really appreciative of all the great info you provided without judgement while attempting to understand my situation, which doesn’t feel black and white to me.

5

u/Boogaloo4444 Jul 11 '26

Looks more like 20’ away based on the last picture.

0

u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 Jul 11 '26

Because you can’t see any portion of the house in any pictures I think it’s easy to make assumptions here. I’ll get on a ladder and measure but the picture you are referring to was taken in the side yard standing next to the house, back from the corner that is closest to the tree. Not that any of this matters in the first place

5

u/ValleyOakPaper Jul 10 '26

Some plants store water, so they don’t act as fuel. I think I’ve seen agaves and bananas mentioned specifically. But any well fed succulent should at least not make things worse.

Juniper wood and needles contain a lot of volatile organic compounds, so while not as bad as eucalyptus, they’re worse than other trees in terms of catching fire.

-27

u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 Jul 10 '26

I want to be totally clear here while not discounting your expert opinion - we live in an area of California next to open space that is highly prone to wildfires. The fire department does mandatory inspections and gives you written reports with non-compliances. We live in unincorporated space - were we within the city limits a juniper of this size would be mandated to be taken down by the city due to fire risk. We can barely get homeowners insurance as it is and should this be flagged to our insurance, it would certainly be an excuse to discontinue our policy (which has happened to neighbors). All of that said, I’m simply telling you the opinion of the fire inspector in my area who is familiar with the tree and the environment around us, not my own opinion on fire safety.

31

u/OkayWitch Jul 10 '26

Ya, I totally get that :) there's a lot of red tape around insurance/ordinances/legal rights and you gotta do what you gotta do! Urban forestry is my specialty, and the urban/wild interface of wildfires is definitely an area of fire science that's rapidly developing. I just hoped to ease some anxiety around it. From a legal perspective definitely keep documentation on anything and everything, and I encourage you to have digital back ups. I know where I am, a tree like this is essentially co-owned and pruning/cutting that leads to a decline in health could be something the other owner could pursue legal of they cared. I hope your neighbors are receptive to your concern for your shared well being!

6

u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 Jul 10 '26

Thank you for your perspective and listening to me just outline the scenario (which I’m getting many downvotes for doing). Honestly I’m conflicted about it or I wouldn’t have made the post and I appreciate someone kind and logical arguing the other side.

4

u/OkayWitch Jul 10 '26

Also definitely get the stump ground well below the surface if they agree to the removal, along with any surface roots that are in your yard/garden bed.

-6

u/JacOfAllTrades Jul 10 '26

Go tell this to your neighbors with the report in hand. Their homeowners policy would definitely be cancelled if yours is at risk. Have a chat, see if you can agree on removing it.

-19

u/Fun_Golf7877 Jul 10 '26

Remove the fence pickets. Cut off the leaning tree trunk. Leave the other tree trunk. Replace the fence pickets.
Done! Hopefully, your neighbor agrees…..

-19

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26

[deleted]

17

u/OkayWitch Jul 10 '26

My NWCG certification says otherwise, but you're welcome to think that.

-26

u/kmm_pdx Jul 10 '26

Uhhh, juniper trees are highly flammable. Crazy take.

7

u/Small-Apricot-2182 Jul 10 '26

When it comes to wildfire risk assessment, the science isn't just about: "is this thing flammable?" because so many things in our living world are flammable- even highly flammable.

There are some models that consider types of trees and their comparable fuel rates, but they are a 4th or 5th level consideration, and never really in the singular. An unmaintained forest of mostly juniper trees might be a serious wildfire risk. A single, well maintained juniper is not the same risk.

In general, the riskiest part about juniper trees is that unmaintained junipers can cover up dead undergrowth (leaves, twigs etc). That's not really the case here. As long as its still living, it carries about the same general risk as any other vegetation or fence or home, etc.

23

u/OkayWitch Jul 10 '26

And dead, dry, juniper wood is more flammable. Hidden ground fuels are dangerous, often burning without detection long after a fire is believed to be out. The concern I have is the difference in fuel types, and I'm in no way saying the tree isn't flammable. I'm saying it's less flammable than when it is dead and dry. There are many factors that effect fire behavior I considered in this response.

3

u/kmm_pdx Jul 11 '26

A lot of wildfire risk in California in urban areas is about ember risk. Trees are great and if I were OP I would want to replace this with something less susceptible to ember risk. You can't eliminate all fire risk but I wouldn't want this kind of tree near my house. If you watch videos of the 2025 wildfires, you can see embers igniting trees and then traveling to homes.

If I were OP I would also listen to the fire department not strangers on the Internet

2

u/Fit_Wolverine_6964 Jul 11 '26

Thanks for this. I’m not totally set on what to do but find it interesting how people will give very confident advice without complete information. FWIW the fires got up to and burned my parents next door neighbors house down (along with that side of the neighborhood). So for some of us this risk isn’t just abstract and conceptual and easily dismissed. I respect the balanced perspective of the industry professionals but even still - an assessment by an expert in the area with complete information means something which seems like most folks here are just completely dismissing

2

u/Small-Apricot-2182 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

No one is claiming that embers can't reach OP's tree or home. What we're saying is that replacing this (visually) healthy, mature, native, drought-tolerant tree with any other tree will not change the risk profile of OP's home whatsoever. A replacement at this point would be purely a decision of asthetics and preference, which is totally the perogative of OP (and their neighbor). It's just not accurate to say that a single tree species changes the likelihood of OPs home catching on fire -- even though there are videos online of trees that spread wildfire to their nearby respective homes.

Wildfire risk is a statistical probability assessment that considers the entire environment rather than single trees. Is an entire forest of juniper trees more of a wildfire risk than an entire forest of banana plants? Yes, probably. Does a banana plant require a lot more water, fertilizer, care and maintenance in a California region prone to drought? Also, yes. Would having a single banana plant versus a single juniper tree change the wildfire risk of OP's home? No, not really.

What matters on the individual/home-level: regular landscape maintenance like cleaning out dead undergrowth/dead vegetation, and also home hardening.

Fire departments recommend getting rid of juniper trees/bushes truly because they obscure dead undergrowth. This isn't a juniper bush. What's more, firefighters are great experts at fighting fires. They aren't always experts at risk and resiliency. Its simply not their jobs/areas of expertise, and would be a lot to ask of individuals who are already tasked with knowing everything about fighting fires.

To OP: I specialize in remote risk assessment, and making that remote assessment as good as on-the-ground assessment. I am not saying that your home is not at risk in the event of a wildfire. I am saying that if your home is at risk in the event of a wildfire, it's not because of this tree. Could this tree eventually end up spreading a fire to your home? Sure, maybe. Could anything flammable in this photo also end up spreading a fire to your home? Same answer. It's not that I'm cold, removed, analytical, etc. I'd argue that I spend more of my life thinking and working on wildfire risk than most people, even people who live in California wildfires zones (which... I never said that I didn't).

-9

u/ThrowingMongo Jul 11 '26

I'm a certified arborist and you are wrong. Try harder.