
California’s Wildfire Policy Backfired (2019) - apsec112
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/11/californias-wildfire-controlled-prescribed-burns-native-americans/
======
labster
Reminder: Southern California's wildfire regime is not Northern California's.
In NorCal, fire suppression makes fuel build up and forest fires burn too hot.
In SoCal, chaparral wildland burns two to three times more often than it did
pre-contact.

The main reason for the increase was that the old primary ignition source was
lightning, while now there are lots of sources: catalytic converters getting
too hot, discarded cigarettes, farming machine activity, and arsonists are a
few. And of course, lightning implies higher humidity, unlike the offshore
wind-driven fires we get now, so the intensity is worse now. Our recent
lightning-sparked fires now seem like something of a departure from normal.

Controlled burns could help in SoCal, but I'm guessing only to reduce fuel
load and create a temporary firebreak.

~~~
donw
Really good points, and really calls into focus the need to empower individual
counties to define their own fire policies (I think that's the right scale).

~~~
labster
Counties would be good. Or something similar to our air quality districts,
which are almost county-shaped with a few added merges and splits:
[https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/dismap.htm](https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/dismap.htm)

~~~
core-questions
In BC there are Fire Centres which have their own level of management:

[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-
status/ab...](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status/about-
bcws/wildfire-response/fire-centres)

The province is broken down by geography, terrain, and biome, so that specific
resources and skillsets can be developed for each potential fire condition.

------
chrisbolt
So I guess The West Wing was right about this back in 2001

> Josh: Putting out fires isn't necessarily our policy?

> Sam: Fire's good for the environment under certain circumstances. Forests
> have a natural cycle that requires purging burns to reinvigorate growth.

> Josh: Someone just said that to you, right?[1]

[1] [http://westwingwiki.com/2014/04/season-3-episode-3-ways-
mean...](http://westwingwiki.com/2014/04/season-3-episode-3-ways-means/)

~~~
Izkata
Article:

> The Forest Service now admits that suppression backfired; excluding fire
> created an unnatural build-up of dry brush and overcrowding of trees that’s
> partly fueling today’s mega-fires.

In a fantasy book from 1998, the third book in the _Circle of Magic_ quartet
[0], a green mage gets extremely pissed off at a fire mage who between him and
his father had been preventing forest fires for decades. By the end of the
book, just such a "mega-fire" formed in the built-up dry material on the
forest floor.

It kinda seems to me like this is a decently well-known effect that the
government has been just been slow to acknowledge...

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Magic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Magic)

~~~
brazzy
> It kinda seems to me like this is a decently well-known effect that the
> government has been just been slow to acknowledge...

I think the problem is that with controlled fires, there is always a risk they
could get out of control and burn down some properties, which will probably
end the career of any politician who supported the decision/policy to not
suppress that fire.

Suppressing fires is safer in the short run, while creating problems in the
long run.

~~~
jennasys
Maintenance burns getting out of control has happened several times in the
past. That's the reason they changed what they called them from "controlled
burns" to "prescribed burns". They got tired of the "That fire wasn't very
controlled hahaha" jokes.

------
qppo
It's really hard to reconcile the fact that we need to build a lot more
housing in California with the fact that we can't keep building in places
where that housing is going to burn down in the near future. I don't know how
long it's going to be until we realize that in certain areas, single family
homes are non-viable for the middle and lower class, since we need medium to
high density housing in the valleys below hills where fire risk is at its
highest and insurance rates _should_ be obscene.

~~~
donw
I don't think that's the problem.

People, especially as they get older, tend to want more space. Being close to
nature -- and California, in those rare moments when it isn't on fire, has
_beautiful_ nature -- is also a big draw.

The people living in those homes aren't, broadly speaking, lower-class. They
live out there precisely because they aren't interested in medium- or high-
density housing, for a variety of reasons.

I would say the primary cause is overzealous environmental legislation,
brought to you by the same people that have fought tooth-and-nail against
nuclear power -- _and thus for burning lots of coal_ \-- for the past seventy
years.

Clean air is great. I like strong emissions standards on cars and factories.
But controlled burns have been absolutely hobbled for years by regulators and
environmental groups.

One of my nephews is a firefighter, currently in California. He'll rant your
ear off about this.

~~~
mint2
If your nephew doesn’t mention liability concerns as a reason controlled burns
aren’t done then you probably shouldn’t listen to him.

Light night starts a fire, it burns down a house, who is liable?

Government in the name of fire prevention starts a fire, it gets out of
control and burns down a house, who is liable?

~~~
donw
You know, that’s a fair point that I hadn’t thought about. I naïvely assumed
that regulatory frameworks would take care of this, and I’m curious what legal
precedent there is?

------
ryanobjc
The headline is misleading. The original policy was the US Forest service - a
federal agency.

As for calfire and the state being reluctant to authorize controlled burns,
well given the risk of wildfire and having controlled burns escape, we
probably need to not just be slack about who can burn what when, with which
supervision.

The title does do the state of California a disservice. We already have a
president* who is attempting to blame state leaders for fire, as a political
fight. When the federal lands and federal agencies are also responsible for
this as well.

The notion that not having smaller burns leads to larger fires is well
established going back decades. We need to accelerate our adaptation to the
new drier climate. This article could help. But give the blameology a rest.

Edit: also note the editorialization of the title. The original article title
was a “native wisdom” approach, which got dropped for “some reason.”

~~~
jmspring
The bulk of public land in California is Federally controlled - BLM, USFS

~~~
donw
True! Forty-five percent, in point of fact. That land is still jointly managed
with the state[1], though.

[1] [https://www.blm.gov/programs/public-safety-and-fire/fire-
and...](https://www.blm.gov/programs/public-safety-and-fire/fire-and-
aviation/regional-info/california)

(Also, I learned something new today -- thanks!)

------
vore
Australia actually does a lot in its fire-prone areas:
[https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/prescribed-
burnin...](https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/prescribed-burning)

As an aside, some plants have in fact adapted to release their seeds in the
event of a fire:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotiny)

------
smileypete
Protection of housing from wildfires is somewhat a solved problem thanks to
the pioneering research of Jack Cohen, and this excellent episode of the 99%
Invisible podcast is well worth a listen:

[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-
burn/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/)

There's plenty of youtube vidoes featuring his research too:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_syp1ZScM)

[https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jack+cohen+wild...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jack+cohen+wildfire)

Perhaps a good way to encourage the work to be done is through the offering of
lower insurance premiums for housing so protected.

------
nerdbaggy
When I was in Riverside California last year I saw either like this orange or
pink stuff on the mountains. Is that some kind of fire suppression powder or
something?

~~~
Rebelgecko
Yup, it's intentionally colored so the aircraft can see where they're dropping
it, but unfortunately it can leave a mark on the terrain for a long time

------
dehrmann
> The Humboldt event united unlikely allies: Trump-supporting ranchers worked
> side-by-side with retired hippies and back-to-the landers

Maybe unlikely if you just look at the D and the R, but non-politicized, local
issues like this will still get widespread interest across party lines.

