KQED California Report: Lessons from the North Bay Fires

The California Report

Confusion, Poor Communication as North Bay Fires Broke Out

KQED has conducted a five-month investigation into what caused the muddled communications and delayed evacuations during the North Bay wildfires. KQED reporters recreated what happened as the fires started on Oct. 8, by listening to thousands of 911 calls, and interviewing dozens of first responders, residents and state officials. This week, we’re dedicating the entire California Report Magazine to the results of our investigation.

This will be an interesting thread.


the report places a lot of emphasis on the lack of timely evacuation orders by authorities. Actually, you don't need authorization in order to flee from a fire, although notification certainly helps.

The hill close to my home has burned three times in the thirty years I have been in my home. Each time I was loaded and ready to go, not evacuating by the thinnest of margins, until last December's Thomas fire when we did pull the plug in response to a mandatory notice.

I think that authorities in our community, at least, learned from the devastating fires of last fall in the North Bay. There was prompt response to our city by Los Angeles units, who were the first responders I saw in my neighborhood, quite early in the event. I would say that the response was quite decent, although there is only so much that can be accomplished with 40+ mph winds in California chaparral.

There are important lessons to be learned from thoughtful analysis of events like this one. "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past re doomed to repeat them." How true!

Never ceases to amaze me. Seems every year there is a major fire in the Los Angeles area, hundreds of homes destroyed. Yet, most of the residents fail to get the idea that maybe nature is telling them, "THIS IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BUILD" and the rebuild again.

It seems that for California, safety of residents is a secondary consideration to tax money from property owners. Such areas should be No build areas.

Just a thought. . .

Well, the population of Los Angeles is around 15 million and of greater Southern California somewhere around 30 million, I believe, so that is a lot of homes, and yes, some do get threatened by fire from time to time.

I agree with you about the problems of building in the urban - wild lands interface. You are definitely subject to periodic wild fires, most of which are human caused. We do need to do a better job with power lines and other infrastructure.

SoCal does not experience tornadoes or hurricanes. I believe those cause structural damage from time to time. Every locality has its problems and situations. Learn them and adapt.

I would like to see the end of subsidized homeowners insurance, such as the National Flood Insurance Program. Most, if not all mortgage lenders in the USA require a homeowners insurance policy. I'm happy for people to build wherever they like, as long as they are assuming (by paying to build it themselves) or transferring (by buying insurance) the risk.

When insurance is subsidized and you transfer the risk without paying full price, it distorts the risk calculation and leads to homes being built in places that maybe they shouldn't be.

Regarding “building in the urban - wild lands interface” - interstitial wilderness runs through suburban areas throughout SOCAL; there is no single interface.

Excellent points all Hikemor.

Interesting you mentioned the electrical infrastructure. I had Fox news on in the background earlier and caught a piece about downed and arcing power lines being responsible for many of the fires. It also pointed out that such arcing lines stressed upstream transformers and circuits, which then failed causing even more fires.

The question was posited, why can't the power in the area be shut down. . Interesting point. More likely, out the lines underground.

But I very strongly agree with ChaosMagnet above that homeowners insurance should NOT be subsidized by the government in such areas. If it burns such owners in high risk areas should be on their own. Granted the area is beautiful, BUT why should the rest of society shoulder the cost?

My understanding is that our regional power supplier, PG&E, is adopting the practice of shutting down power lines when high winds are predicted. The results of the investigation of the Thomas fire, our most recent holocaust, have not been finalized, although lawsuits against PG&E are already being filed. A lot of us will be surprised if down power lines are not the cause of this fire...

You're correct that a number of the North Bay fires destroyed houses that are built in somewhat remote areas, but some of the fires - such as Coffee Park - destroyed entire suburban neighborhoods that were virtually surrounded by developed areas.

The PG&E power lines were actually designed to be repowered (by use of devices known as re-closers) after the lost power. So a power line would be knocked down or damaged and instead of sitting down because of the interruption, they were designed to power back up again automatically.

I suspect shutting down the power lines is one of those ideas that sounds better in theory than it would be in actual practice.

To be effective, you would need shut down the grid every time high winds are predicted, and keep it shut down till the winds subside. But in effect, that would mean shutting down much of daily life for a huge area and population. The electric grid powers hospitals, traffic signals, home medical equipment, cash machines, refrigeration and freezers at your local supermarket, gas pumps at your local service station.......the list goes on and on.

Given the extent of the grid, putting all those lines underground would be hugely expensive, and possibly technically impractical.

A better solution might be selective upgrades and preventative maintanece, in areas where fires are most likely to be started by the lines. Simply keeping brush and undergrowth cut back along the lines might go a long way. Or raising the lines higher above the ground in places such as ridge tops where winds might be expecially intense.

As hikermor has noted, fires and earthquakes are just part of life in Socal. Kind of like tornadoes in Oklahoma.

http://vcfd.org/images/prevention/Brochures/VCFD_Fire_Hazard_Reduction_Brochure_final_2017.pdf

"Defensible space" is an important concept in minimizing fire losses and enforcement of this concept has minimized fire losses in the past in Ventura County. Unfortunately, even a six lane highway has proven an inadequate fire break when Santa Ana winds are romping. During the Thomas fire, sustained winds were 40 mph, with higher gusts.

I am reminded of a comment made during my first season of fire fighting, the summer of 1957, in Southern Arizona - "the most dangerous fires to fight are those in California chaparral." how true, how true.

More on steps to prevent power lines from starting fires:

Facing Blame for Fires, Utility Plans 24/7 Prediction and Response Center in California

Apparently the utilities do, in some cases, shut off power to whole towns to prevent wildfires:

PG&E may shut off power lines to prevent fires in this weekend’s wind storm

Just a side note from our experience during the Thomas Fire of December last year. Our area lost power a couple of hours before the fire reached our neighborhood; we left our home with all power shut off over the entire city. Easily the most dangerous part of our experience during the entire fire experience was driving on streets with no functioning traffic signals or area lighting, to say nothing of functioning gas stations or ATM's. Fortunately we only had to drive about five miles on roads we both know well; even at that, there were moments of confusion.

Our practice is to fill up the gas tanks when they become half empty; I recommend that heartily.

Choasmaget et others: Have a bit of a care as to opposing all government supported flood insurance subsization . The bulk of such insurance covers lower middle class to poor folks homes, who would have no affordable home, but for their existing ones. Think the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans and innumerable homes in flood plains in Appalachia. An alternate to zero subsidization is a limit ion policy value. Thus, payoffs to poorer folks with low value homes could be maintained.

The California problem and also in Florida and other places too, is the building and rebuilding ( after destruction) of new HIGH VALUE homes in known wildfire and coastal flood zones. This situation could also be met by mandating much lower policy coverage limits in such zones, coupled with high premiums. An alternative is expensive full coverage insurance with a no rebuild clause, mandating escheat to the state after pay-off and high premiums. Lastly, in some coastal areas, insurance companies have outright refused to issue new policies after one pay-off and a refusedto cover new construction for new buyers.

Maybe we don't need to get rid of ALL subsidized flood insurance but most of it should go IMO. It's putting many lives at risk. There's one home that has been destroyed and rebuilt 35 times (!) by floor insurance- that is insane! And while many poor folks rely on it there are many wealthy people that abuse it.

Long and short- it encourages building in flood plains. That isn't a good thing. As the global climate shifts we're going to see increasingly extreme weather, and as sea levels rise there are places that humans simply won't be able to inhabit any longer. Instead of pouring tax money into holding back the ocean with a broom we need to relocate people to higher ground.

New Orleans should probably be abandoned. Yes, it's a wonderful city. Yes, it has fascinating history. And yes, French engineers warned that the site was unsuitable for a city before it was even built. They were correct then and it's far worse now.

35 times??!!That, indeed, is insane...My rule #1, when looking for a home, is stay out of the 100 year flood plain.

I'm not as well-versed in New Orleans flood protection as I might be. Here's my take: If the existing situation is supportable by property owners shouldering the full risk of flood (either by assuming the risk themselves, mitigating the risk, or re-assigning the risk by buying insurance out of their own pockets) rock on.

I'd be comfortable with New Orleans having tax-supported flood mitigation, as long as the people of New Orleans pay the bill through a democratic process.