Structural Wildland Intermix1

According to the California Fire Census, more than 390 of about 1,000 separate fire departments currently claim to have an urban wildland interface problem. These communities range in size from small fire districts to metropolitan fire departments. The census contains numerous data elements that reflect both the prevention and suppression capacity of the California Fire Service. This document clearly illustrates that the jurisdiction and structure of the fire service in California is quite complex, thus contributing to the lack of a uniform approach to prevention efforts. The spiraling losses are partially the result of the denial of the fire problem by both individual property owners and, to some degree, local government officials. The mistaken assumption that larger and larger mobilization efforts are needed to limit losses is also a factor. Although the media responds with major coverage to the scenes of these events when in progress, the follow-up coverage and resolution of specific mitigation efforts is of relatively insignificant media interest. The California urban/wildland fire problem is not perceived as a major policy consideration by local or State government when compared to other issues. When the fires are in progress, everyone is interested. As soon as the fires are over, the issue becomes secondary to daily concerns. Written documentation from the last 10 years of these fires suggests that the specific findings from each successive fire is consistent with the findings of the previous ones. The more common factors that lead to catastrophic losses are well-defined and repeated in report after report. The mitigation efforts that are fairly effective are also well-defined. However, cohesive action that would result in comprehensive changes is lacking. For example, some mitigation efforts apply only to the burned area. In actuality, the mitigation efforts must be applied in areas that have not burned or the effort is wasted. Fires in the recent past have resulted in a significant economic impact on the State. Fire losses are only one factor. The impact on the tax base and the costs of suppression are equally important. For example, the Oakland fire of 1989 removed over $100 million of assessed valuation from the tax rolls of that city alone (in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code, Article 70 and Article 74). These last fires will probably result in significant reduction in the assessor’s tax rolls in Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. During the period of rebuilding, property taxes are not paid by the affected property owners. In addition, after rebuilding, the property owners are protected from incremental tax increases based on Proposition 13 provisions. Fire suppression costs are severely impacted by the need for overtime to provide adequate personnel resources. Initially, responding engines are taken from on-duty Abstract: Because many major population centers are located in wildland areas, many structures have been destroyed by increasingly more costly wildland fires. The structure and jurisdiction of the fire service in California are complex, and a uniform approach to fire prevention is lacking. A description of many of the fire issues in the wildland-urban intermix is provided. The relationship between State and local governments is at the heart of many of the issues. Cooperation between State and local governments coupled with public education and enforcement of current standards and regulations should reduce the occurrence of catastrophic wildlandurban intermix fires.