Over the past few days we've read a ton of articles on the California fires, many of them opinion pieces on what went wrong, why and various suggestions for fixing the problem. Quite a few of the pieces we read bemoaned that Californians are increasingly intruding into and building their homes in fire-prone areas where they shouldn't be.
Is that really the problem? On the surface, the numbers are compelling: if the same fires had struck in 1980, they would've threatened 61,000 homes (within a mile of the fire); by this year the number had grown to 125,000 homes (according to a Univ. of Wisconsin analysis). It reminds us of the hurricane danger--the biggest problem is more and more people living in coastal zones threatened by tropical cyclones.
Then there's the issue of whether California and the National Forestry Service have fought fires TOO WELL, allowing large amounts of underbrush and other fire fuel to build up, instead of letting smaller fires burn (on non-windy days) and consume all that combustible material.
No doubt, both these problems contributed to the magnitude of the recent threat.
But one of the more interesting back stories is that of a few neighborhoods that survived the fires by using strict fire prevention building codes and adhering to landscaping practices designed to inhibit fires.
One of those neighborhoods is Stevenson Ranch, with 5000 homes (we called that a city where I grew up) in Santa Clarita. Homes there are built with concrete tile roofs, which won't burst into flame when embers settle on them. They have enclosed eaves, which keeps embers and burning ash out of attics. And they have heat resistant double-paned windows. (As a bonus, they're probably pretty energy efficient.)
Outside, these neighborhoods allow only certain plants that tend to be fire resistant. No pines or palms, both of which can go up like torches in a big fire. There are greenbelt breaks between the edges of the neighborhood and the wilderness beyond, as well as concrete culverts and other fire breaks. (We do wonder about the water needed for those greenbelts in such an arid region.)
Beginning next year, California regulations will more strictly limit what can and can't be built in fire zones. That's a big step forward, although California will still have tens of thousands of older homes in those zones.
In that regard, California is well ahead of many Gulf Coast and Southeastern states, which refuse to do much to regulate what can be built in hurricane zones. The fact is, we know quite a bit about how to build virtually hurricane-proof homes, but many governments feel it would be just too intrusive to require such measures.
It looks like Californians can live in the dry wilderness areas safely, as long as they're smart about how they do it. And that's good, because they're learning that FEMA sure isn't going to help much if they have another outbreak of fires!
