Here are seven reasons why California’s wildfire prevention efforts aren’t working | Opinion

As wildfire losses in California and elsewhere have worsened, public awareness of the risks of wildfires, especially in areas where wildlands and populated areas meet, has dramatically increased. This awareness has been hastened by large-scale non-renewals of policies by insurance companies or significant increases in the cost of coverage.

Federal, state and local governments have spent increasing sums of money to address the issue. But the story that has yet to be written is why those efforts have fallen short, and why they have run into very vocal local resistance to implement the most important risk reduction measures.

Wildfires may have few friends, but they can have many unwitting allies.

In fire-prone landscapes such as California, the goal is to reduce the speed of wildfire spread near communities while eliminating the vulnerabilities that allow vegetative wildfires to spread to homes. These strategies offer a path to sustainable wildfire adaptation.

However, we will not bend the curve on wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface until we address the following problems head on:

Protecting homes from wildfire requires a change in aesthetic sensibilities

For many, surrounding houses with greenery is a source of pride and solace. While this is understandable, we now know that the single biggest mitigation against wildfire is a five-foot “Zone Zero” of non-combustible material surrounding houses, preventing fire from getting into the walls of a house and taking hold.

Recently, both the insurance industry and government agencies have come to see this zone as critical. Yet, the public remains wildlyresistant because five feet of gravel or other non-combustible material is seen as unsightly. Very few public agencies — most of which have politically-selected leaders — have been willing to mandate it.

Environmental concerns

While state environmental law expressly exempts defensible space within 100 feet of homes from its restrictions, other wildfire mitigation measures to reduce overgrown vegetation have been subject to environmental regulation and even lawsuits.

Current environmental laws protect certain species, riparian areas and unstable slopes capable of producing sedimentation, and no one is arguing those laws should be ignored. But we must all be willing to agree that reducing fuel loads on unprotected land to slow a wildfire would be better than allowing those habitats to be completely destroyed, along with adjacent houses.

Rising costs

Large property owners, such as park districts, face enormous costs creating mitigated areas, removing dead trees and maintaining fire adapted open spaces. They must be funded to do so. But even small property owners argue that moving their decorative plantings, trimming trees and clearing underbrush and dead weeds can be expensive — and they aren’t wrong.

One solution is for government to create programs that allow homeowners to “borrow” against their property values to do the necessary work now while paying back the loan over time.

Blurred government responsibilities

California fire regulation is conducted by a bizarre patchwork of government agencies, including fire districts, cities and counties, special purpose districts, universities, private and public utilities and state and federal governments. As a result, for example, a special district or university may be in a fire district, but assert that only it can determine what is necessary for fire safety.

The rule should be simple: Any fire suppression agency that has responsibility to control a wildfire on a given piece of property should have the power to create regulations for the prevention of these fires.

The politics of enforcement are perilous

The more enforcement, the more angry residents and the more resulting political pain. Given that wildfire spreads across the landscape with little regard for local government boundaries, these are not issues best resolved on a city by city basis. Instead, state agencies set standards for and require annual reports on the status of fire prevention activities in schools and other high risk settings. The same level of state engagement should occur in this space as regionally appropriate wildfire prevention standards are established and enforced.

Over four years after the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 3074 directing the Board of Forestry to establish a Zone Zero regulation to remove combustive material within five feet of structures, it is left to local agencies and the California Department of Insurance to overcome local resistance to this standard on their own.

Overemphasis on fire suppression vs. prevention

There are a number of critical differences between fire suppression and fire prevention: The former is highly paid work mostly performed by firefighters, while the latter is essentially landscaping work on a large scale primarily performed by ad hoc groups of unrepresented laborers at fairly low wages. Yet, much of the money that government allocates to reduce wildfire loss is reactively focused on the suppression of wildfires.

This imbalance, along with our respect and need for firefighters, leads elected officials to favor firefighting over prevention. It is important to recognize that there are many societal values to wildfire prevention work. While there are some good wildlife prevention programs already in this space, they could be expanded drastically.

Landowner responsibilities

Homeowners understand that when their roof leaks, they are responsible for fixing it. Homeowners also understand that if a dead or diseased tree on their property falls onto a neighbor’s roof, they have liability for neglect. But property owners often feel that the government should pay for things like removing trees and clearing brush.

While government support of this work through loan programs makes sense, there is simply not enough government money to pay for every private property owner’s remediation efforts. And the suggestion that government should take on this responsibility is itself an impediment to getting the job done.

The bottom line is that we must follow the science but also recognize that the key to solving the problem lies in coming to terms with our own attitudes and preconceptions.

This story was originally published January 15, 2025 at 9:52 AM.