This is just nonsense. If the researchers’ definition of wildland-urban interface encompasses a third of American homes then we are all doomed already. Do a third of the people you know live on the edge of wildland? Paradise was in the middle of the forest. Clearly it was at risk but the fraction of California housing like that is very very small. But Malibu or Sonoma? Have you been to these places? They are like anywhere. Unless we are all to move to Manhatten, we need to be able to defend these places and not blame the homeowner for living there.
1
I lived and sandbagged the Mississippi River as a youth then I experienced forest fires in the Sierra. When we moved from Southeast Pennsylvania to Santa Barbara we made “no creeks or woods “ our main guides of where to locate here. Several friends here have lost homes due to debris flows or fires, all were near or in the “woods”’.
3
Unfortunately this only the beginning of nature "resetting" the scene. It is imperative that we learn that we are guests on this planet. The attitude is that throughout our history we can do whatever we wanted to. If trees were in the way cut them down, if a mountain impeded mining blast it apart, if someone wanted to build a new development drain the rice paddy and build on it. There has to be a new model implemented of co-operating with the environment. Unlike the move "The Day After Tomorrow" climate change happens slowly over the long haul. One change begets another & over time it adds up. People are involved with their daily life & concentrate for the most part on the immediate. That is human nature. What is needed in my opinion is a national program to implement strategies to help us adapt to these changes . This could include among other ideas, a strengthened social safety net as some industries change, an emphasis on a partnership between the science & business communities & taking solutions to other parts of the globe. What happens here also happens elsewhere. Climate change will create massive social & political change. Unfortunately in Washington we
have a president and his party that cannot see the forest through the trees. For now until the change in attitude in the capitol occurs the cities & states will have to do what they can. The canary in the coal mine has stopped singing. We are running out of time to manage a response.
5
We'll get to a point where the federal government is going to have to mandate better control of local and state building codes, and the tools they have are FEMA insurance costs and things states must do to continue getting federal disaster aid if the state doesn't discourage repeating bad decisions.
For example, Texas allowed Houston sprawl that exacerbated Harvey's impact, applied for federal disaster aid almost before the storm, but didn't touch their own $8 billion rainy day fund. Afterwards they approved a development in a flood control reservoir area. Things like that have to stop.
The Southwest had multi-decadal droughts, and longer, in the past, and the region is over-promised on available water already, so greater populations, sprawling out, means more stuff to burn and more people to rescue. Forests to the north are burning more often, too, as warmer winters let pests kill more and more trees that had been protected by deep winter cold.
Sea level rise is now to an unavoidable part of the future (though we should work now to reduced the amount of rise long-term) so high tides are already increasing damages in coastal areas even without storms, and the increase in intense rainfalls is increasing flooding inland as well as on coasts. While the number of hurricanes isn't currently expected to increase, the fraction of hurricanes at the higher end of the scale is expected to go up.
So aid people now, but make them rethink how and where rebuilding goes next.
3
Let's face it. As pretty and picturesque as they may be, not every place is appropriate for human habitation.
5
This problem in Southern California began after WW2 when in their arrogance the leaders of the region in unison with the car, oil and tire industries convinced the much smaller population that existed then that a new way of living could be achieved.
A car in every garage, a tiny backyard to go along with the garage for every family resulted in humongous sprawl while destroying a comprehensive mass transit system to be replaced by freeways. This worked until the world beat a path to the state because it had no cold, no snow and 509 days of guaranteed sunshine every year.
Consequently, instead of building up in already settled communities like Hollywood, Santa Monica, the South Bay and the flat plains south of downtown LA through North Orange County they spread north and east encroaching into the wild lands. The Inland Empire used to be dairy farms and sparsely populated towns, now it looks like every other cracker box urban ghetto which even without forests or chaparrals will burn furiously when a spark during a Santa Ana wind comes roaring through.
9
Hey Los Angelenos: Avoid the risks of country living - move back downtown. And save yourself 15-25 hours weekly driving time!
8
The problem is extremely complex. There are no easy answers and no way to assure that wild fires and human activities will not result in so much destruction.
Every climate and ecosystem deals with fire and every human community does as well. But when conditions change, the results change, too.
Chaparral and grasslands burn frequently and quickly. Forests tend to burn less often and the intensity can vary from quick moving that scorches trees to slower and far hotter that reduces them to dead stumps.
The Southern California fires are chaparral fires and they will burn every year. Structures must be placed so that there is distance to keep wild fires from them. Strong winds will overwhelm any precautions and only fire fighting can save such structures.
When one considers the Camp Fire, think of New England. The trees turned colors in the Fall. The temperatures were cold and it got wet in the Fall. The climate and ecosystem resembled New England, until recently when it dried out. It changed. Suddenly, it just was not as wet at this time of the year. Suddenly wild fire became a much more likely event.
4
@Casual Observer
This is not complex. This is global warming.
Soon in the Western US a car mirror or a window will shine its light on debris and a fire will start. In Mount Shasta this summer, a large fire was almost stated by a car accident. All activity, if involving a spark is susceptible to starting a fire.
The Carr Fire, aptly named, was started by a car accident.
These fires get worse every year. Again, this is not complex - even taking in grasslands, and mitigating natural fires by the forest service and it's practices - this is global in nature and localities now know it but Federal entities don't.
2
"A mansion destroyed by the Woolsey Fire in Agoura Hills, Calif., on Tuesday."
Have a look. The kind of mansion that no average American family could ever afford.
EVER
Why, precisely, should their taxes, help bailing out Mansion owners, per Federal Emergence Management Agency ?
7
@Talesofgenji I think the rich have more than enough money to build their mansions back up without relying on FEMA.
3
@Talesofgenji. Take another look. The landscaping tree choices could not be worse. See those burned Italian Cypress? They are like match sticks. For the housing that does exist in this interface and urban areas, adapting to this reality of dry conditions and strengthening winds should be researched, embraced and regulated in every aspect of design and implementation.
3
This stems comes from the prevailing view that we, as humanity, are in a constant state of war with nature.
We CONQUER mountains. We TAME the wilderness. We BATTLE the elements.
Just pay attention to the world and plan accordingly. In the 1960s California philosopher Alan Watts looked on in amazement at the crews leveling off the sides of mountains so that suburban-style homes could be built on the slopes. Watts rightly predicted that in a few years those homes would be washed away.
Build in conformity with nature. We are part of nature, not outside warriors.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
All this certainty about where people should and should not build to control destruction by fire is a bit clueless.
Building in the wild where the ecologies have adapted to frequent fires is reckless and subjects fire fighters to avoidable risks. But no place is safe from fire without considerable efforts by people to avoid it.
Cities have caught fire and burned down numerous times in history. Rome, London, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco have all burned down, famously.
Climate change is producing extreme weather that is causing fires around the world and in every latitude. That will be the focus of our efforts to deal with fire for the rest of the century. The location of human habitation will not save from the ravages of fire until we see the end to extreme weather conditions.
2
@Casual Observer - Yes!
I'd like to add that new construction, built to updated codes, is also a great deal more fire resistant. So we are seeing the destruction of a lot of old and out-dated housing stock in these catastrophes. But the replacement buildings will be more resilient.
The same applies to earthquakes, floods, high winds...
In short, we are learning to adapt.
2
From flood planes to beaches to landfill in known earthquake zones, people are convinced that should something bad happen the "Government' (i.e. other, more prudent Americans) will bail them out .
They should be free to move - with adequate, realistically priced insurance
4
@Gerhard - Are you in NYC? Should the parts of NYC that were flooded during Hurricane Irene be abandoned? Should the prudent taxpayers living in hurricane, earthquake, fire and tornado areas not have helped NY state with covering some of the repair and reconstruction costs?
We are all in this together.
Abandoning swaths of NYC is an impractical solution, as is abandoning the entire Mississippi river basin. (Remember the Great Flood of 1993.)
Abandoning Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle because they are in earthquake zones is also impractical.
We need to build better, take other actions to mitigate risks, and expect that bad things will still happen.
Next time NYC experiences a hurricane induced tidal surge, tax payers all across the nation will chip in to help fix the damage.
We are all in this together, and we are stronger for it.
5
@J Jencks I'm in Buffalo, NY and we have basically no natural disasters - no earthquakes, no fires, no hurricanes. If you live in the right part of Buffalo, then even the snow is mild - we also produce our own electricity and have our own supply of fresh water.
Perhaps if more Americans lived in areas that are safer then we wouldn't have these problems.
You are 100% free to live wherever you and your family wants. Just don't force me, through taxes, to subsidize your risky choices.
And please don't tell me "we are all in this together." I don't recall getting invited over to those posh parties before all those .01% ters' mansions burned down. I guess my invite got lost in the mail but I'm sure my tax bill for their fire subsidies will arrive right on time. Being part of something typically means give and take and when it comes to bailing out natural disasters I seem to give a lot more than I take.
2
When will the Democrats, liberals and progressives that control California politics crack down on rampant construction in fire prone areas? California burns on a regular basis, and the property and homes consumed by fire continue to increase as Californians build further and further into the drought prone foothills and the desert. The Santa Ana winds that fuel the inferno are nothing new; they were there in the early 60's when I lived in Corona. But back then there were orange groves to break the wind rushing down from the hills instead of subdivision after subdivision.
6
Never, real estate is a bipartisan business, in truth California's only lbusiness through the 20th century to the present day, and most of the recent boom construction inland is rubber-stamped by Republican city planners. Take a look at CA's voting patterns and where Paradise was located.
3
People choosing to live in fire zones should expect their neighborhoods to resemble Georgia after Sherman marched through. They should get insurance while they still can and rebuild or move somewhere else.
2
Many who chose to live there were or and/or elderly, on social security or pensions. The ‘choice’ was mostly determined by cheapness. Where would you have them go?
2
Paradise was built in the 1800s. A comment that ca needs to limit populatio: how so? Mandatory birth control? Not allowing interstate migration? Come on americans— how about a bit of empathy for calif
14
I live in the East Bay hills, literally two miles from a BART station (commuter train) that gets us to downtown San Francisco in 15 minutes. My house is 10 miles from UC Berkeley, 5 miles from downtown Oakland. It is beautiful here. I have a gorgeous view and am surrounded by 200 year old Oak trees.
These are well established neighborhoods that have been here for 70 years. But the fire danger is very real and it's hard to imagine how we can mitigate it, both for political reasons and financial reasons. It isn't something one person can take on. This is beyond trying to protect your personal property.
In speaking with the local fire chief, we were told that if we can't live with the risk, we should leave. He said there is really no good way to protect ourselves and once more than 3 homes catch fire they will not be able to saves homes. This is due to the nature of fire in these new conditions and the fact of the hilly terrain with narrow roads and limited water running though 80 year old pipes pumped up hills - we will need to focus on escape.
We are seriously considering moving, but due to limited housing options in the Bay Area and traffic nightmares (it can take over 2 hours to drive what BART can travel in 15 minutes) that is more complicated than one would think.
I was born and raised in the Bay Area and have about 5-10 more years before we can retire and I cannot wait to get the hell out of there. I hope I'm not too late.
11
A few thoughts -
The headline, "Moving Closer to Nature" ... Have we forgotten that it was ALL Nature until the 19th century, when we took over discreet pieces of it, destroyed everything natural, paved over it all and called it "cities". Let's not let the fear of wildfires be used to spread the destruction of cities over yet more land.
"Wildland-urban interface" ... There will always be one and people will always be living in it. It is the inevitable result of having urban areas. If there are urban areas then there must, by extension, be an interface with "wild" land. That is the definition of the urban area's boundary.
There are a lot more people now than there were 100 years ago, and they like going camping on the weekends, having BBQs, and sometimes doing stupid things like tossing still lit cigarettes away. More people = more fires. Education helps. So does punishment. As mentioned elsewhere, electrical utility companies appear to have been very lax in their duties.
I'm a California native. It's time we realize that irrigation based landscaping exacerbates the problem, by building up a lush greenery that becomes tinder in the dry years. Part of the education mentioned above is that we must move towards xeriscaping. Local governments can start, with street and highway plantings, to show people how attractive it can be.
And charge a LOT more for water.
12
There are guidelines available to communities on the urban-wildlife interface to help limit the damages that can be created. The International Code Council (ICC) publishes a code book exactly on that topic. Go to www.iccsafe.org for more information.
3
@Jerry in NH - Thanks for that.
Much of this material was developed in response to earlier wildfires in California, and has been incorporated into CA building codes. Current construction is much more resilient than what was built a generation back. Unfortunately, most people don't have the funds to upgrade their houses to current codes, but anybody who can afford it should certainly consider it.
2
In Montana the WUI is a huge problem. Making your property fire safe should be a priority. However there is a mindset that bucks any kind of regulation eventhough it means their property could be saved. So a stubborn homeowner is the one that provides fuel for fires . Insurance companies need stop insuring homes that are a hazard or raise the cost. This goes for rebuilding in fire prone areas. I am sick of firefighters risking their lives for these idiots.
7
@loosemoose
You are spot on. It's a fire-based forest here in Montana, love reading the studies that Steve Arno did, using tree rings and extracting cores from the soil to measure how frequently major fires occurred over the past several thousand years. And Smokey Bear made it worse by stopping all fires for 70 years, with unnatural fuel build up. And now people building their dream home in an area that is meant to burn -- and then expecting us to pay for fire suppression. It's a huge problem indeed.
3
In some states that are averse to zoning, there are increasing numbers of people living in the flammable areas and they do NOT take steps to ensure the buildings are made from fireproof materials, and they don't necessarily even have the power to enforce local rules about keeping a clear perimeter around the homes.
In cases like that, it's tempting to say the "big government" will also not intrude by trying to put out wildfires in the area, but that's not the right thing to do.
So, either zoning will have to tighten up, or people will have to get used to more and more state and federal disaster funds being distributed (and taxes raised to pay for).
All I can figure there is that maybe the federal government start putting requirements into aid, like they used federal highway funds to push states to raise the drinking age.
As for the homes and residents, out in tornado country there are a lot of storm cellars, either built under the house or in the yard. Like a tornado, a wildfire is unpredictable, but quick to arrive and fairly quick to be gone again.
Is it possible to build a safe underground shelter that could protect residents? Evacuation is more effective if done before the fire hits, but people living in edge zones, as we see in California and especially in the fires in Ft. Murray in Alberta last year, have very limited capacity to handle a burst of traffic, especially when both sides of the road might be burning forest.
This is a fantasy.
Both northern & southern California are suffering from wild fires. This could be a uniting factor.
Though the Camp Fire starts in Paradise, CA (you can’t make this up) about 100 miles northeast of San Francisco (my domicile) the impact on the local air quality is getting slightly worse with each passing day. This could be a uniting factor.
The Woolsey Fire is in the area on the northwestern edge of the Los Angeles metro area. Given the pattern of the prevailing winds, the smoke is pushed off-shore. It is possible that major segments of the LA area are not directly impacted by the fire. This would not be a uniting factor.
Having stated the above, I’m sure the fiery image of the I-405 (a MAJOR transportation link) in 2017’s Skirball Fire caught the attention of every sentient being who ever took that road. This could be a uniting factor.
The Camp Fire started at roughly the same time as “an incident” was reported by the area’s utility company. Utility company power lines have been mentioned as a potential source for some of the wildfires. Everybody has grown accustomed to having electricity. This could be a uniting factor.
The Governor of California calls upon the citizenry to contribute to a statewide effort, perhaps every household that receives electricity has to contribute 2-3 days per annum towards work that reduces the state’s vulnerability to wild fires or lose access to electrical services.
Relax!
This is a fantasy.
@David Trotman - a big (expensive) project that would help would be to bury power lines - transmission as well as distribution. Germany buried lots of theirs and grid reliability went up.
Alternatives in California right now are either pre-emptive blackouts, or the risk of PG&E going bankrupt from fire liability costs.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-defends-planned-outages-as-last-resort-tool-to-prevent-wildfires/541318/
1
These radical fires are not just in California but all over the world. People aren't just moving toward fire susceptible areas, every area is becoming unsafe & it's because of global warming caused by humans. In 25 years people will start to spray on cement siding on their house because anything flammable will burn.
5
@James Dinneen Jr
Cement siding; Hardi Planks
1
Let me start off by saying it's horrible what happened to these people. But having said that, if the State of California allows the town of Paradise to be rebuilt on that same spot, with no provisions for future fire protection, then someone should be arrested and charged. You can't keep rebuilding in the same vulnerable spots, and then keep having sympathy for the people who insist on living there, when the inevitable happens AGAIN. The same thing is going on in New England. Lots of very expensive housing on Cape Cod and the North Shore of Boston is going to be washed away by a Noreaster. Should we allow them to rebuild when it's not safe?
5
@MarkKA - This is a different situation than communities in coastal zones faced with hurricanes. Virtually the entire state is vulnerable to fire. Lightning strikes, for example, are the cause of most "natural" wildfires (as opposed to man-made causes, which result in more fires). And lightning strikes can happen anywhere.
So it's not a question of geography so much as local landscaping.
Also, new houses are considerably more fire resistant because of new building codes. However there is no provision for requiring upgrading of old houses. So when a fire like this comes along, it burns down lots of old houses, which causes a critical mass of fire too large for even the new houses to resist.
However, when rebuilding happens, the new houses will all be up to current code, much more fire resistant. The new, more fire resistant community will be much less likely to reach that critical mass of fire danger.
There really isn't any such thing as a "safe place" to build. There is only the possibility of building safely. That costs money, which means people need to adjust to the idea of smaller, more durable, houses.
3
@J Jencks I've lived in the WUI in California since 1995, and the statement quoted in the article from Mr. Cox is inconsistent with my observation of building practices. Many houses have been built in my area - I'd say, virtually every one of them I've seen in the last 23 years using wood frame, plywood/OSB exterior walls, and wood exterior sheathing as well. I totally agree we need to alter our building practices, and make it permit fee free to do upgrades that increase fire resistance (with no increase in square footage). We also need to stop approving small-lot subdivisions sprawling into wildlands or the WUI. Period. Just no more of them at all in those areas. There is no such thing as defensible space when there is a wood construction house less than 100 feet away.
3
Simply stop building in these areas as well as flood plains and coastal areas. As to over population the entire world is over populated
1
@Steve - where will you move to? Seattle's near a subduction zone and a volcano and is exposed to risk of tsunami. The Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and many other large central rivers flood, and smaller rivers are now flooding in areas seeing more intense precipitation.
Tornados hit from Texas up into the Midwest, and eastwards into Florida and Georgia. The entire Southwest will get another multidecade drought like that which collapsed civilizations there hundreds of years ago (during part of what's been collectively dubbed the Medieval Warm Period - the "good old days" to climate deniers)
So, building smarter, rebuilding smarter, learning that some areas should NOT be built on will all be cheaper in the long run than migrating the entire population to areas that are low enough on the impending risk scale.
@b fagan How about Buffalo or somewhere else in Western NY?
1
To each their own. I think it is insane for government to be fighting nature at our seashores, building dunes and barriers to protect multi-million dollar private properties whose owners deny the general public access to their shorelines. That's reverse welfare.
Here in Southern Vermont, I have my own few acres carved out of the forest, adjacent to State Forest/Wildlife land, and near the National Forest. I wouldn't have it any other way. We have snow cover five months of the year, it never gets as dry as in California, and the occasional brush fire is usually brought under control quickly. The house was built with a metal roof to resist flying cinders, if any, and a generator to power well water if I want to water down the house. I realize that will not stop a rip roaring forest fire.
But my interests and hobbies are such that close neighbors are not really compatible. And if I burn to the ground, I have private insurance I pay for.
Enjoy all those mutual covenants and property owners association rules in the suburbs, folks. If everyone had the same opinions and preferences, the world would be a very boring place.
11
For decades out west, very well off people have been building vacation or year round homes in or around fire prone areas such as Sun Valley, Bear Mountain, Flagstaff, Tahoe and W. Montana. Usually these larger private estates are bordering national forest or other park lands. Our state and federal government has spilled out many millions in the past protecting these wealthier people's individual homes. This lesson has been well known for a long time.
Yet people still set up their ranch estates in the fire prone wilderness just as they build big, waterfront houses along the beaches. Another example of privatized benefits and socialized costs. Many individuals have individually benefited from a nice place to live while not taking in the huge cost of the wildfire risk. Disproportionately deploying resources to where arguably people shouldn't be living in the first place.
31
Years ago there was a story of homeowners that had the ability to launch a fire retardant foam over their entire house. Don’t know the cost per home, but it sure beats pollution and ground water contamination caused by so many plastic components of cars, homes and toys burning. In addition insurance companies rate increases and redlining will prohibit many families from being able to afford a home again. This could be the expansion of the tiny / portable / affordable house movement! Look up tiny house.
2
As a former California resident who now lives in a state with too much rain recently, I empathize with the residents suffering from these horrible fires, some of which I witnessed more than 30 years ago. As readers have mentioned, wildfires are normal for California given its geography, so anyone residing or building in these wildland-urban intermixes must acknowledge and accept the high level of risk. Developers and realtors are a big part of the problem, however, and have encouraged intrusion into wild areas. The image of the setting sun representing the Golden State should now be replaced with a firestorm. That would be a visceral way of rebranding California and get the point across to those wanting to move into or build structures in these hazardous areas. Drastic but effective.
9
Mindless building with no thought of the environment they are building in is the problem. If insurance companies would either refuse to cover or make fire insurance insanely expensive would make people think twice. What about the municipalities that approve the building permits.
When working with a aerial tanker company the absurdity of their primary mission to save buildings is appalling. Two years ago a gallon of fire retardant cost $4. The plane I supported carried 11,600 gallons each and every flight. That was $46,400 for the retardant alone.
7
@Paulie
The state of California bullies towns into meeting quotas for new residences. Gov. Jerry Brown has supported initiatives that allow developers to leap frog local building restrictions.
Increased population means increased tax revenue which supports all the beloved state programs. Unfortunately federal dollars get spent on the fire fighting resources which means all of us are paying for the increasingly unsustainable California dream.
2
I am a firm believer in global warming but a state like California is facing something different. California is a place of fire. Before Europeans settled there areas in California burned every 2 to 10 years. Those fires cleared off the overgrowth. It has been over a hundred years of fire suppression in California and if you drive through California especially the Northern part you can see the over grown brush and trees in the wild areas. I don't pretend to know the solution but what ever it be it is going to cost the state a lot of money.
23
This is such an important point and I do not understand why it has been so absent in the news coverage. The historic natural fire cycle in California was very short. It can be held back for only so long. Ignoring that fact and over-emphasizing climate change only serves to diminish the situations where climate change really is the primary driving force.
16
@scott t
Thank you for making this point. Disrupting natural cycles to protect human investment has consequences.
One thing you got wrong, though....as soon as a disaster is declared, federal dollars are involved which means we all pay. I'm not saying we shouldn't; we pay for hurricane, flood and tornado relief as well. But going forward, funding this level of time and again destruction is going to get expensive for all of us.
8
It is time for Californians to realize that their environment cannot handle any more residents. They need to limit population growth.
16
@ann
Californians need to limit their population growth?! Seems to me the entire world needs to limit population growth.
42
I agree that California needs to limit its population. Much of California has been semi-arid and fire-prone for a long time. In my opinion, the people that build these houses in these dry areas should have known better.
3
@ann Of many good comments, yours is the best. I loathe our current President, but the issue which garners him the most support is immigration. It is so unfortunate that his racist demagoguery has crippled discussion of an important national question, and that is of population growth in our country, which is driven by immigration, both legal and illegal.(This has been the case since the 1970's, when the native population had achieved a replacement level birthrate.)
Also in the 1970's, when so much of the great environmental legislation was written, most liberals, including many Republicans, were environmentalists, and Zero Population Growth was a great movement. This referred to population growth in our own country, as well as in Bangladesh and Nigeria. So sad that so many of the media, including this newspaper, and so many liberals, support an increase in immigration, which is catastrophically at odds with environmentalism.
The many good comments regarding insurance rates and unwise development are correct, but all these are secondary to the main problem of too many people.
14