CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND WISDOM

• First is the matter of land development.  California’s last big fires occurred in 2003, basically in the same areas that burned last week.  Fires in this region of California are a natural phenomenon, similar to tornados in the Midwest and flooding in the Mississippi delta region.  Although there is evidence that arson played a role in some of the fires, there is no question that wildfires are the brutal facts of living in this region of California.  So, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported:  “Fire risk is rising as more Americans build homes on the borders of the wilderness.  Of some 13 million housing units built in the 1990s, about 8.1 million were located in areas where urban development meets wilderness, according to Volker C. Radeloff, a professor of forest ecology at the University of Wisconsin.  In San Diego County, three-quarters of the 90,000 homes built in the 1990s were in wildlands.”  The point is that a greater percentage of new homes are in severe fire zones, more than 50% in California and Colorado, and more than 65% in Washington and Oregon.  “That forces firefighters to spend more time and resources on saving property than on attacking the main body of the fire.”  In San Diego County, which has borne the brunt of the recent fires, three out of four homes built since 1990 are in the dangerous zone where open spaces and housing meet.  As the New York Times reports: “These are the most vulnerable and exposed places in fire season because wildfires by and large start in national forests, recreation areas and other publicly owned lands. . . Had [last] week’s fires burned in the same locations in 1980, about 61,000 homes would have been within a mile of a fire.  By 2000, the number would have grown to 106,000 homes, and this year it was 125,000, according to an analysis by the University of Wisconsin.”  The point is that many Californians want the best of both worlds—life in the danger zone and more fire protection.  Can they realistically have both?  Protecting such homes is the fastest-growing component of the nation’s firefighting budget.  For that reason, the highest levels of government (at the state and national levels) are struggling with the toughest proposals:  Curtail population growth on the wilderness margins and/or sweeping overhaul of how the public lands are managed for fire danger.  For example, should large amounts of brush and deadwood be cleared regularly or should it simply be permitted to grow naturally, as some environmentalists desire?  Humans cannot build homes in areas called the “wildland urban interface” (WUI) and expect there to be no fires!  For that reason, many are also proposing that state and local governments foot more of the costs of firefighting in such areas.

• Second is the matter of drought.  The Colorado River has experienced its 8th year of drought.  Southern California has experienced similar drought during the last two years, with earlier and longer summers, thereby drying out the land and vegetation.  This development too accounts for the costs of these deadly wildfires.  Rising temperatures and loss of moisture are a perfect storm when it comes to such fires.

• Third is the matter of fire suppression.  As the Wall Street Journal has reported:  “For most of the 20th century, US Forest Service policy mandated putting out all fires, which stopped a natural cycle of lightly burning fires that cleaned out undergrowth and dead trees every 15 to 30 years.  That policy, coupled with a decrease in federal timber harvests in the past 20 years, has created unusually dense forests that have burned with a much higher intensity once ignited.”  Firefighters are therefore really at the mercy of the weather and, when the Santa Ana winds blow ferociously, there is little that can be done.  To attempt to put out all fires during the early stages of the fires is virtually impossible.

• Fourth is the matter of insurance.  Estimates now are that the losses from these wildfires could reach between $1 to $1.5 billion, the costliest to the insurance industry this year.  This of course does not even compare with the insurance losses from hurricane Katrina, which ran over $41 billion!  But in July, Allstate, the nation’s second largest property-casualty insurer, stopped writing homeowners policies for new customers, in what it termed “catastrophe-prone California.”  California is the most heavily regulated state in terms of insurance and, because of the wildfires and earthquakes threats, Allstate had no choice, they contend.  What should Californians who want to live in WUI areas do?  One solution would be for the US government to underwrite such insurance, but then we would have the scenario of taxpayers nationwide subsidizing insurance for Californians who choose to live in WUI spaces.  Editorially, the Wall Street Journal argues that “until insurers are allowed to charge premiums high enough to cover actual risks, people will continue to build and reside in places they probably shouldn’t, secure in the knowledge that when Mother Nature inevitably strikes, someone else will write the rescue check.”  These seem like harsh words, but they reflect the brutal facts of reality!

There is little question that we must give aid to those who suffered so much loss from these devastating wildfires.  However, policy makers at the national and state levels must hold homeowners, developers, states and local communities more accountable for the choices they make.  No one is forcing people to live in WUI areas.  Should humans choose to live in those areas, they must bear the cost of the certain risk.  This is the hard, but accurate truth of this development within our nation.

See the most helpful article by Nick Timiraos and “Review and Outlook” editorial in the Wall Street Journal (27-28 October 2007) and Kirk Johnson and Jesse McKinley, New York Times (28 October 2007).