[neverartful]

I'm genuinely surprised that California hasn't figured out fire risk management decades ago. The Santa Ana winds are nothing new and have been in the southern part of the state forever. I remember seeing news reports about catastrophic fires in southern California as far back as the 1970s (when I was a kid). Doesn't everyone know that strong winds (which are guaranteed to come) can make wild fires exponentially worse? No one can control the wind though.

The 3 necessary components for fire are: oxygen, fuel, and ignition source. No stopping the presence of oxygen. Ignition sources are present with lightning strikes (among other things). That leaves fuel as the thing that can be controlled. If you can't reduce the fuel load around your dwelling, it doesn't make any sense to live there. I live in a forest that has experienced a tragic wildfire in the past, so I'm in a similar boat (but without the Santa Ana winds). Keeping fuel away from my home is something that I think about a lot -- and ACT ON a lot.

I have a neighbor who does practically nothing to reduce his fuel load. It's his legal right, but I think it's foolish. He's told me he likes to keep his property "undisturbed". It sounds like there's much of the same thinking that drives policy in California.

The combined practice of: (1) put out any fire immediately, and (2) do nothing to reduce fuel load, makes for a bad combination in the long run. It would seem to me that Californians should have figured these things out decades ago and be the experts on fire risk management. What am I missing?

[potato3732842]

>I'm genuinely surprised that California hasn't figured out fire risk management decades ago.

They were getting so rich so quickly it didn't matter that they had stupid and unsustainable government practices (not managing fire risk, meddling in insurance, etc).

[bell-cot]

> What am I missing?

Human nature, sad to say.