Why Fire Prevention Accounts fail in California

In an educational video, the State Fire Agency Save two demonstration homes on fire: One built by the latest construction standards and the one who did not have these protection. As you would expect, the one with new features remained standing while the other burned within minutes.

Experts say that softening measures, such as clearing a brush or using fire-resistant building materials, are the most effective way a government can reduce the impact of fires. And once again, after the latest fires in southern California, legislators and experts emphasize the need for More than him.

But every year, many bills aimed at protecting homes from fire fail – some due to costs and others due to conflicts with environmental provisions.

This year, the legislators introduced about 90 bills related to wild fires, with about half of the softening. But the prospects for the bills are uncertain, especially since several are re -introduced after failure in previous years.

Last year, for example, governor Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills veto to finance more fire prevention, saying they were too expensive. One, Assembly A assembly 3023was estimated to cost between $ 1 and $ 4 million a year, while the other, Senate Bill 470it was estimated that it was at least in tens of millions of dollars a year.

NEWSOM also quotes the costs in its veto of bill Sponsored by the California Cities League, which seek to alleviate the resolution of endangered regulations so that it is easier to clear vegetation. The bill, which adopted the legislature without a “no” vote, is estimated at about $ 1.6 million a year.

“It is important that you remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal consequences that are not included in the budget, like this measure,” Newsom wrote in its veto message last September, as the state was confronted with a budget deficit.

Palisadi and Ethan fires prompted the California Cities League to introduce the bill again, this time author of author Damon KonoliDemocratic Assembly from San Rafael.

“Long deadlines delay the fire preparation projects in the areas that are most at risk of catastrophic fires,” the group of the group wrote in a statementAdding that the size and severity of the fires have increased dramatically in recent years.

Assembly Heath FloraA Republican from Ripon and a former volunteer firefighter said that while the governor cited fears about costs, he sees mitigation as requiring more political will this year.

Quotation initial payment From the state last month for fires in southern California, Flora said: “We can suddenly find $ 2 billion to make permits through documents, but we can’t do anything to mitigate?”

The governor’s service usually does not comment on the pending legislation when he asked him if he would be more secretive bills to invest in fire protection. The state budget process involves funding to mitigate fire through A climate bond of $ 10 billion Voter approved last November.

Other bills were killed last year due to cost concerns before reaching the governor as such as a member of the Assembly Joe PatersonRepublican from Rockelin.

His bill would speed up the environmental review process in limited cases for public agencies who want to clear vegetation to prevent fire.

The bill was killed by the last session in the Committee on Budget Loans of the Assembly, despite bilateral support. According to the analysis of the bill, this would cost the Ministry of Forestry in California about $ 12 million each year to hire more staff and buy more vehicles.

“At the end of the day, these things are not free,” Patterson said. “If public agencies are leaving their own money behind making these things and the state has few overhead costs, it is better than spending billions of dollars struggling with fires.”

The California Republicans presented the lion’s share of proposals to prevent fire this year. They have implemented five measures aimed at alleviating the requirements of the Environmental Quality Act in California for vegetation management.

Some environmental groups have opposed some measures like these.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a group of intercourse in the field of environment Senate Bill 610 Last year, which seeks to revise the state -free fire marshal mapping system from one that focuses on the likelihood of a fire to one focused on the potential damage that the fire can inflict on the area under existing conditions.

JP Rose, the director of the Biodiversity Center, said the group opposed the bill because it “mainly describes the standards of the fire we have in books at the moment as a bureaucracy and things we don’t need. … From our point of view, this seems completely wrong and extremely risky. ”

The Center has not yet taken positions on bills introduced this year, most of which are still awaiting the committee tasks. In general, Rose said the center supports policies that discourage development in high -risk areas and policies that promote fire resistant improvements to the home.

“We usually oppose plans to” suspend “permits requirements that are crucial to the construction of safer communities, such as existing state construction standards or all-electrical construction standards of LA,” Rose said.

The former Senator Bill Dodd, a Democrat, who represented the Napa area, who saw wild fires in 2017, 2018, 2020, has authored seven bills related to the fire mitigation during the last two -year session, five of which failed to accept the legislature.

Dodd said that often when balancing environmental concerns with the work of mitigation, “the perfect can be the enemy of good.”

“Softing is some challenges -but the benefit of mitigation is far better than the disadvantage of not mitigating, which is increasingly reactivating,” he said.