And they are
unrelated to
climate change:
California most
dangerous fire weather
is during the cooler,
wetter seasons, when
there are episodes
of high winds -- the Santa Ana
and Diablo winds -- that rapidly
suck moisture out of whatever
vegetation they pass over.
Fires burn two to three times
more area during those
high wind events.
The worst fires are those
where somebody ignited
a fire, accidentally or
intentionally, during
an extreme wind event.
In the many centuries
before people lived in
in California, the extreme
winds never coincided
with the summer lightning
fires season.
But due to human ignitions,
many more fires occur during
the strong cool-weather winds.
Wildfires are not caused
by "climate change".
If the climate is a few
tenths of a degree
warmer than it used to be,
that's not going to cause
a dead branch to snap,
take down a live electric
wire, and start a fire
on dry vegetation.
It's humans who start
most wildfires.
California’s population
doubled since 1970.
That's 20 million more people.
So many more people
increases the probability
of careless fires, and
more arsonists too.
More humans disturbed the
landscape, which became
increasingly covered in
easy to ignite invasive
grasses, that dry out
very quickly in windy
weather.
Mendocino Complex Fire:
California’s largest
documented fire.
Began as the Ranch Fire,
caused by a rancher
driving a steel stake
into the ground
to plug a wasp nest.
One spark = one fire.
The Ranch Fire merged
with another fire, to become
the Mendocino Complex Fire.
Thomas Fire:
California’s 2nd largest fire.
Ignited by a downed
power line
during high winds.
Cedar Fire:
California's 3rd largest fire.
Ignited by a lost hunter
who carelessly lit
a signal fire.
Rim Fire:
California's 5th largest fire.
Started by a hunter’s illegal,
and improperly attended,
campfire.
Carr Fire:
California’s 7th largest fire.
Caused by a
highway accident
where sparks ignited
the roadside grasses.
California’s deadliest fire,
the Camp Fire, destroyed
the town of Paradise,
and killed 85 people.
“Since the year 2000
there’ve been a half-million
acres burned due to
power line-ignited fires,
which is five times more
than we saw in the
previous 20 years.”
According to the U.S.
Fire Administration,
one in every five brush,
grass, or forest fires
in the U.S., since 2007,
was intentionally set.
Arson is difficult to prove,
so the percentage stated
above is probably low.
Wildfires caused by lightning
peak during July and August,
and are very rare in
autumn and winter:
Unfortunately, human ignitions
created year-long fire seasons.
Once a fire has started,
government policies have made
fire fighter's jobs even tougher.
-- Policies encourage
more fires,
-- Policies encourage
more fuel in the forest
for each fire to burn,
and
-- Policies do not allow
firefighters to focus
100% on stopping
the spread of a fire.
California's desire
to "preserve" their
natural forests
is the first problem.
Two of the resulting
problems are simple,
but not fixed:
- Laws to restrict
and/or prevent
deliberate burning
of dry brush,
using small
controlled fires,
to reduce the fuel
available for
future wildfires.
-- Laws prevented PG&E
from trimming trees more than
four feet away from their
electric wires.
There was also Insufficient
PG&E maintenance to replace
deteriorated poles, and do
tree trimming often enough.
Because of high winds
possible in California,
PG&E was justified
in asking for 15 feet
of clearance between their
electric wires and branches.
There's no doubt that
15 feet of clearance
will make many trees
look bad -- and sometimes
they would look awful.
But 15 feet of clearance
means PG&E would not
have to trim very often !
Unfortunately, California
environmental groups
protested -- and PG&E
ended up with a ridiculously
small four foot clearance --
that requires much more
frequent trimming.
The California government,
and regulatory agencies,
do not seem to be forcing
PG&E to fix obvious
maintenance problems
-- But they did allow
the "band aid" cure of
shutting off electric power
during high wind storms.
PG&E suggests the policy
will be required for at least
the next decade, or maybe
forever, knowing California !
I heard about a couple
on TV who had a well,
with water distributed
by multiple pumps
and hoses.
They'd also cut back
all the dry vegetation,
for quite a distance
from their home.
Then PG&E cut off
the electric power,
due to high winds,
so their electric
pumps had no power.
They had to evacuate,
and their home later
burned down -- they
were furious at PG&E !
California politicians
seem more interested
in mandating construction
of new wind turbine and
solar panel "farms",
rather than proper
maintenance of the old
electricity distribution
lines.
There's another unique
problem -- California's
"chaparral ecosystems"
are very risky places
for building homes
and neighborhoods.
After many visits,
to California,
over many decades,
I never got used to
the brown, dried up
California vegetation
in the warm months.
The hot, dry late spring,
summer, and early fall
temperatures, and the
frequent droughts,
lead to dry vegetation.
Especially when the
wind is blowing hard.
I can understand
wanting to build
a home surrounded
by green forests.
It puzzles me that people
would want to build homes
next to dry, brown vegetation.
More puzzling is why
California citizens are
allowed to build homes
near wildfire fuel.
The Sacramento Bee
agrees, and wrote:
" ... wildfires are only
destroying more homes
today than decades before
because of rapid growth
in rural areas.
It's not that fires are
more devastating
in the natural sense.
The problem is that
human beings insist
on putting their property
in places where fires
have long destroyed
the landscape, over
and over again.
[T]he fires aren’t
getting closer to us —
we’re getting closer
to the fires.
“We’re seeing wildfires
that have always been
a part of the landscape
that are now interacting
more and more with us..."
Stephen Strader studied wildfire
history in the western U.S.,
and mapped population growth
in areas where fire activity
had ranged from medium
to very high.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v92y2018i1d10.1007_s11069-018-3217-z.html
He said that back in 1940,
there were 600,000 homes
located in fire prone areas
in the West.
Today that number is about
seven million homes -- 12 times
more homes in fire prone areas.
Homes in dangerous
locations bring people
to places where an
accident could start
a wildfire (usually started
by humans, or wind
downed power lines
leading to their homes).
Another problem with
homes near the forests
was something I first
realized while watching
an episode of a new
cable TV show:
"Emergency Rescue".
The episode I caught
happened to show live
video of firemen trying
to fight one of the California
wildfires, earlier this year,
filmed live by a photographer
embedded with the firemen
within the fire !
-- Wildfires are almost
impossible to fight when
the winds are strong.
The main hope
of the fire fighters
is to make good
progress when
the wind speed
is low, or moderate.
-- With high winds, fires can
leap across an interstate
highway that most people
would consider to be
an effective fire break.
-- Rubber tires on cars and
trucks can melt from fires
next to roads ... and many
vehicles don't allow you
to 100% block outside air
(and smoke) from getting
into the passenger cabin.
-- The hours are incredibly
long for the fire fighters.
You'd want them to devote
100% of their time, and
energy, to fighting the fires !
But that does NOT happen.
There is a
HUGE distraction
for fire fighters:
They must drive,
or walk, past fires
next to the roads,
because homes
get top priority.
People who
evacuate
do not leave
a sign saying
they left, causing
the fire fighters
to waste time
checking every
single home.
Quite a few people
do not evacuate,
and also have pets
at home.
Governments can
order people to
evacuate their homes,
and can fine them
for ignoring the law.
But the laws are rarely
enforced -- there are no
policemen going from
door-to-door writing
'tickets'.
And fire fighters are
not taking names,
and writing tickets !
There's no government
punishment if people
ignore "mandatory"
evacuations ...
and they do.
Of course disabled people
may not be able to evacuate.
( I hope the newer policy
of turning off the electricity
will encourage more people
to evacuate their homes ).
So as I watched
Emergency Rescue,
firefighters were
distracted by
checking homes,
which were often far
apart, for residents.
They have to get
all people out,
because many
do NOT evacuate.
People go to bed
seeing no flames
on their side of the
mountains, and think
they are safe.
But when the
wind speed
picks up,
the fires move
incredibly fast.
People may wake up
surrounded by
smoke, and/or
fire, in the morning,
with roads blocked,
unable to escape.
Every home is a
potential deathtrap
that a firemen
MUST CHECK.
If there are people
in the home,
they'll often have
pets they want to save,
and at least on the live
TV show, the firemen
did not say "no"
to saving pets.
When a firemen
found a disabled
resident, that required
two or more men
to move him to safety.
Which means two or three
men NOT fighting the fire.
Some fire fighters also
seemed to be protecting
a home after the residents
were evacuated, rather than
fighting the fire directly,
which I did not understand.
I yelled at the TV set as
I watched fire fighters
ignoring roadside fires,
so they could evacuate
people with no sense.
One answer
to help fire fighters
focus on the fire,
is to fine people
who refuse to
evacuate --
but much better is
to NEVER ALLOW
homes to be built
next to a forest in
wildfire prone areas.
Once homes
ARE built,
that means
people have
placed themselves,
and power lines
going to
their homes,
in a seasonally
dry area where
fires are very
easy to start.
Unfortunately, the
fire fighters can
not ignore homes,
and devote 100%
of their time to
stopping the
wildfire from
spreading.
Which makes
a very difficult
job even harder.
So why are people
allowed to build homes
in obviously dangerous
areas ?
Population growth
is a good reason
for more homes --
but NOT an excuse
for WHERE homes
are located.
In a free market,
it SHOULD BE
very expensive
to extend a
neighborhood
out to the fringes
of the forest.
A natural looking
yard is just
a fire disaster
waiting to happen !
Housing developers
should need to finance
new housing construction,
AND access roads
for the new homes.
But building new roads
is often subsidized
by state and local
governments,
along with paying for
permanent, ongoing
road maintenance.
Road subsidies
promote more
dispersed residential
home development.
Ending road
subsidies
would force
more close-in,
dense residential
development.
Home density
would be higher.
Rather than homes
spread far apart,
built right next
to the forest,
( unless the
owner was willing
to "self-insure" ).
Some people
in California
are smart enough
to realize THEY are
worsening their
pre-existing wildfire
problem themselves,
not CLIMATE CHANGE !
The Los Angeles Times
editorial board wrote that:
"Land-use decisions
are made by local
elected officials,
and they’ve
proven themselves
unwilling to say no
to dangerous sprawl
development ..."
If people insist on building
and selling homes in
obviously fire-prone areas,
let THEM cover the cost
of fire mitigation, and
rebuilding the home
after a wildfire !
Unfortunately,
but no surprise to me,
California politicians are
actually PROMOTING
excessive building
in fire-prone areas.
A state law passed
last year had allowed
the California Department
of Insurance to force
insurers to renew
residential policies
for one year, in ZIP Codes
that had been affected by
declared wildfire disasters.
Previously, insurers had to
renew policies ONLY for
individual homeowners
who suffered a total loss.
The current law extends
to all policyholders in an
affected area, regardless
of whether or not they
actually experienced
a loss.
In early December,
California regulators
prohibited insurance
companies from dropping
home insurance policies
in fire prone areas.
The moratorium
applies to about
800,000 homes,
and more areas
are expected
to be added
in the future.
By forcing insurance
companies to cover
risky homeowners,
California politicians
are encouraging
people to buy homes
in areas likely to
fall victim to wildfires.
When regulators
are increasing
insurance company
costs, they drive up
the price of
all fire insurance,
even for prudent
homeowners who did
NOT purchase a home
in a fire-prone area.
Similar problems have
happened elsewhere,
from government subsidies
driving illogical behavior:
U.S. federal regulations
and subsidies are used
to significantly cut
flood insurance prices.
The National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 actually encourages
builders and homeowners
to place new homes,
and rebuild damaged homes,
in areas likely to be flooded,
over and over again !
With sane politicians,
which may be an oxymoron,
people who insist on living
near where wildfires
(or floods) are likely,
would have to assume
the entire risk of doing so
-- NOT demanding
that politicians force
the costs onto the
insurance companies,
and taxpayers whose
homes are built in
sensible areas.