by Rich Fairbanks
Once again, veteran LA Times reporter Bettina Boxall nails an aspect of the fire issue.
The subhead to this Dec. 31, 2008 story kind of tells it all: "About 1.4 million acres burned in 2008 in one of the worst fire seasons in the state's history. But no meaningful reforms are enacted at the state or federal level."
In fiscal 2008, half of the $1.4 billion that the U.S. Forest Service spent nationally on wildfire suppression was spent in California alone. State fire expenditures topped $1 billion. So we spent 1.7 billion on fire suppression in California. Remember, due to fire borrowing, much of the money the feds spent on suppression came out of their regular project budget, thus halting the very fuels reduction work (such as controlled burning) that would eventually reduce the number and extent of wildfires. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
A number of excellent bills were introduced at the state level but only one passed -- and it was vetoed.
A bill written by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) would have required that new subdivisions in high fire-risk areas have two access roads to ensure that residents could get out and fire engines could get in during an emergency. Developers also would have had to show that they had adequate water pressure and fire protection.
The proposal, supported by firefighter associations, was listed as a "job killer" by the state chamber of commerce, which argued that it could virtually shut down suburban development in certain parts of the state. (Actually I think George Bush already did that with his economic policies, but that is another blog altogether.) The bill was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The feds fared no better. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) helped push through an appropriations bill that provided $910 million in emergency funds for federal firefighting and fuel-reduction efforts.
But her proposal to give incentives to communities around the country to adopt a model fire-safe ordinance dealing with building codes and defensible space fizzled. So, we continue to spend megabucks for suppression, but give short shrift to any fire management solution that might inconvenience the developers, the chamber of commerce, etc.
Awesome post! I really agree with the need to re-think the way we build in the WUI, especially in areas like LA, Orange and San Diego counties. Perhaps the state chamber should think about all the bad press you get from these wildfires destroying homes instead of thinking about losing the profit from one more house shoved up against a box canyon?
Might make for a more liveable neighborhood AND provide for safety if we gave the houses and the wildland a bit more "breathing room".
Posted by: Dave Egbert | April 03, 2009 at 11:05 AM