The wildfires that broke out in southern California in mid-November were some of the most destructive on record … and the evidence that our fire season is year-round is now impossible to ignore. Why have California wildfires become so much more destructive than ever? How are we going to pay for fighting so many fires? Is it wise for Californians to rebuild in fire-prone areas? That’s what so many hammered homeowners are saying they’ll be doing, even as they pick through the rubble of their burned-out houses.
The loss of southern California homes and acreage to fire this year is already 22 percent over the record-breaking 2007. Why has it gotten so bad? Many politicians and scientists point to global warming creating drought conditions. But others say the big reason is our skyrocketing population, and our insistence at building homes in the path of the Santa Ana winds. Santa Barbara County Fire Captain Eli Iskow speaks for many professional firefighters when he complains about the proliferation of housing developments in fire-danger zones. JPL climatologist Bill Platzert thinks the state needs stricter zoning laws to discourage building where there’s a high risk of fire, while Tracy Westen of the Center for Governmental studies goes so far as to propose a special fee for those who chose to build and live there (on top of the higher insurance premiums they already pay).
On the one hand, we all have to accept the fact that development will continue in the “wildland-urban interface,” but we can no longer put off the very serious choices we all have to make in the near future about how we deal with a state that can erupt into flames at any moment.
RELATED RESOURCES:
Cal Fire
NASA - JPL Climate and Oceanography
National Science Foundation
Center for Governmental Studies - 2004 Wildfire report
RELATED STORIES:
After the Burn: Inside Story - By Producer Angela Shelley - Producer Angela Shelley spent the day at Sylmar Senior High with the evacuees who tell their own moving stories of escaping the firestorm and trying to make sense of the senseless.
Commentary - Marcos Villatoro - Fire is a natural cleanser. That's a strange notion for urban folk, and little consolation for our neighbors who have lost their homes. But every year we're faced with this. The bigger we grow, the closer we get to the source of the flames.
WEB ORIGINAL:
Youtube Fire Wall - By the Web Team - The only thing that spreads faster than a wildfire is a viral video of a wildfire.
Protect Yourself In Unhealthy Air - By the Web Team - Sam Atwood, spokesperson for the South Coast Air Quality Management District discusses how wildfires affect air quality and our health. Atwood shares tips on how to protect yourself when air quality is the most unhealthy.
Want to subscribe to SoCal Connected's RSS feed? Click here.
This is in response to your segment on “Southern California Connected” dated Nov. 20, 2008 concerning the impacts of the recent wildfires near Sylmar and Orange County. Being a wildland firefighter in Southern California and just recently participating in the Sayre Fire, helping to protect some of those homes, I was very enthusiastic about watching the segment. Though I only watched the first portion, I was very impressed with the relevance of the content and feel that this is an issue that touches practically everyone living here. I was very intrigued to hear the comments made by Lt. Governor Garamendi as well as the climatologist from the jet propulsion lab. What really intrigued me though was where they stood on what are the causes of why we now have a year-round fire season and who should be responsible for incurring the cost when such disasters occur?
It appears from watching the segment, that there were two camps on who was responsible: one group believing that the state and government should absorb most of the cost while the other believes that the cost should be levied on those that live in these areas in the event this happens again. I feel that this argument affects more people than many realize. Those that live in these areas are not realizing the true cost of their choice to live in an area that is extremely susceptible to such hazards. In essence, they are being subsidized at the expense of millions of taxpayers and the local community governments. I know this is not a popular opinion but it is in fact true. The areas that many of these communities are in, to state it simply, are “high to extreme hazard” areas. Most emergency agencies realize this along with, I’m sure, those in urban planning and development. Unlike the hazard of living in a metropolitan area that is prone to earthquakes, living in areas prone to wildfires should require an increased knowledge and responsibility on those that choose to live there.
For some, living in these areas is a financial choice where they are limited on options. For others, it seem it’s a choice of tastes and preference. Either way, I think that the responsibility should lie with both and out of fairness, be held more accountable – financially. It would not be right, nor moral, to charge someone the total cost. What I am saying is, out of fairness to all, that they incur a more proportionate cost for their choice to live there. Adjusting property taxes to include the additional risks or requiring residents to provide insurance coverage that would soley cover the residence would relieve the burden to the general taxpayer and make people fully realize the cost of living so close to such a hazard.
I hate to see people lose their homes and I have seen it enough times, up-close, while trying to defend them that I think the public should be made more informed on the risks they are taking. They should not be duped into thinking - either from the property agent or because they have some clearance around their home – that these areas are safe or that the only adverse result would be the loss of their home. In watching the segment, I got this perception. Aside from the cost of suppressing the fire, having emergency response and relief resources available to assist the public, there is the potential risk imposed on the emergency responder to risk his or her life when not duly necessary. Being a public servant and emergency responders, we understand that the task we do involves risking our lives. But, I feel it is selfish for some to gamble with our lives simply because they wanted to live in an area that is so dangerous just because of the view or privacy. Quite honestly, it made me upset during the segment when some homeowners were asked why they keep coming back after repeated wildfires and replied by saying “ Because I love it here and I am willing to risk losing my home if it happens again”. This public sentiment is not new to us and we accept that some people either do not know or simply don’t realize what they are saying and we continue to do what needs doing.
Having lost co-workers in the past under these same conditions, where they tried to defend a home in a extremely hazardous and unsafe environment, should be known to people who live there that that is what they are risking as well – the lives of firefighters and the lives of their families. I do appreciate all the thanks that people give us and I am grateful for that. I just feel that people living in these areas need to take a closer look at the costs.
In conclusion, I would much enjoy hearing more discussion on this subject on your show and look forward to watching other topics related to Southern California. Please also realize that these comments are my own and do not reflect the opinions of other firefighters or the agency I work for. Thank you for your time.
This is in response to your segment on “Southern California Connected” dated
Nov. 20, 2008 concerning the impacts of the recent wildfires near Sylmar and Orange County. Being a wildland firefighter in Southern California and just recently participating in the Sayre Fire, helping to protect some of those homes, I was very enthusiastic about watching the segment. Though I only watched the first portion, I was very impressed with the relevance of the content and feel that this is an issue that touches practically everyone living here. I was very intrigued to hear the comments made by Lt. Governor Garamendi as well as the climatologist from the jet propulsion lab. What really intrigued me though was where they stood on what are the causes of why we now have a year-round fire season and who should be responsible for incurring the cost when such disasters occur?
It appears from watching the segment, that there were two camps on who was responsible: one group believing that the state and government should absorb most of the cost while the other believes that the cost should be levied on those that live in these areas in the event this happens again. I feel that this argument affects more people than many realize. Those that live in these areas are not realizing the true cost of their choice to live in an area that is extremely susceptible to such hazards. In essence, they are being subsidized at the expense of millions of taxpayers and the local community governments. I know this is not a popular opinion but it is in fact true. The areas that many of these communities are in, to state it simply, are “high to extreme hazard” areas. Most emergency agencies realize this along with, I’m sure, those in urban planning and development. Unlike the hazard of living in a metropolitan area that is prone to earthquakes, living in areas prone to wildfires should require an increased knowledge and responsibility on those that choose to live there.
For some, living in these areas is a financial choice where they are limited on options. For others, it seem it’s a choice of tastes and preference. Either way, I think that the responsibility should lie with both and out of fairness, be held more accountable – financially. It would not be right, nor moral, to charge someone the total cost. What I am saying is, out of fairness to all, that they incur a more proportionate cost for their choice to live there. Adjusting property taxes to include the additional risks or requiring residents to provide insurance coverage that would soley cover the residence would relieve the burden to the general taxpayer and make people fully realize the cost of living so close to such a hazard.
I hate to see people lose their homes and I have seen it enough times, up-close, while trying to defend them that I think the public should be made more informed on the risks they are taking. They should not be duped into thinking - either from the property agent or because they have some clearance around their home – that these areas are safe or that the only adverse result would be the loss of their home. In watching the segment, I got this perception. Aside from the cost of suppressing the fire, having emergency response and relief resources available to assist the public, there is the potential risk imposed on the emergency responder to risk his or her life when not duly necessary. Being a public servant and emergency responders, we understand that the task we do involves risking our lives. But, I feel it is selfish for some to gamble with our lives simply because they wanted to live in an area that is so dangerous just because of the view or privacy. Quite honestly, it made me upset during the segment when some homeowners were asked why they keep coming back after repeated wildfires and replied by saying “ Because I love it here and I am willing to risk losing my home if it happens again”. This public sentiment is not new to us and we accept that some people either do not know or simply don’t realize what they are saying and we continue to do what needs doing.
Having lost co-workers in the past under these same conditions, where they tried to defend a home in a extremely hazardous and unsafe environment, should be known to people who live there that that is what they are risking as well – the lives of firefighters and the lives of their families. I do appreciate all the thanks that people give us and I am grateful for that. I just feel that people living in these areas need to take a closer look at the costs.
In conclusion, I would much enjoy hearing more discussion on this subject on your show and look forward to watching other topics related to Southern California. Please also realize that these comments are my own and do not reflect the opinions of other firefighters or the agency I work for. Thank you for your time.