This document is a multi-part compilation of recommendations from top fire experts, submitted to California Governor Gavin Newsom in February, 2019, compiled by Douglas Bevington, Forest Director, Environment Now California Program

Below is FUSEE’s contribution, read the whole document here.

CalFire's 20th Century Fire Suppression Policy is Not Appropriate for a 21st Century Climate

by Timothy Ingalsbee, PhD, Executive Director, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology

Up until the mid-20th century, we had a lot more fire on the land

Hundreds of fire history studies document that wildland fires burned significantly more area than burns now. Even in the 20th century up until the 1950s, several tens of millions of acres burned in the U.S. each year (NIFC).

Then we began mechanized firefighting in the 20th century

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service began fighting fires in 1905, but with minimal effectiveness due to the large expanse of undeveloped wildlands, the limited size of its workforce, and primitive technology. This changed in the post-World War II period with an influx of military surplus vehicles and equipment in fire suppression (Pyne 1982). Cutting firelines with bulldozers and airtankers dropping chemical retardants brought annual burned acreage crashing down. In California alone there was a 36% decline in area burned from the 1940s to the 1950s, the start of a trend of rapidly declining acres burned that continued until the 1980s (CalFire-A n.d.). This created a historically unprecedented shortage of fire on the landscape that is still adversely affecting fire-adapted ecosystems across the west.

But the post-war surge of suppression success accompanied a change in climate

At the same time that mechanized firefighting was pushing deeper into backcountry wildlands and containing nearly all wildfires at a small size, the climate had changed. A prolonged cool, wet period from a natural cycle of climate variability called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) greatly aided firefighters' efforts in stopping wildfire spread (Littell et al. 2009, Peterson et al. 2011). This created an unprecedented shortage of fire on the landscape during the 1950s and 60s. During this post-war period with its anomalously and artificially low level of wildfire activity, people developed a distorted perception of wildfires as absolutely bad, along with a false sense of security that firefighters could put them all out (Murphy et al. 2018).

21st century climate change is making wildfires start easier and spread faster

At the end of the 20th century that cool, wet PDO cycle ended and was replaced with much warmer and drier conditions that are now being amplified by global warming from fossil-fuel emissions. Prolonged droughts punctuated by frequent severe fire weather conditions (high temperatures, high winds, and low relative humidity) are making vegetation ignite much easier and fires spread more rapidly. Beginning in the 1980s but accelerating after 2000, the signal of anthropogenic climate change is now registering in greatly increased wildfire activity that is leading to longer fire seasons and increased amount of acres burned. But even this recent increase in large fires masks the fact that there still much less fire on the land than is necessary for maintenance of California's fire-adapted forest ecosystems (Sugihara et al 2006).

21st century climate is ending the efficacy of conventional firefighting

Conventional firefighting tactics of dumping retardant, cutting firelines, and lighting backfires cannot stop wind-blown flames from jumping over firelines or firebrands lofting in the sky and landing on flammable rooftops miles away from a wildfire's flaming front. Now that 21st century anthropogenic global warming is causing severe fire weather conditions to become more frequent, the efficacy of conventional suppression is further declining. Conventional firefighting strategies and tactics are unable to either prevent or suppress large wildfires that are now being driven by climatic conditions that will be with us for the far foreseeable future.

Suppression spending is soaring

In response to increasing wildfire activity, both federal and state agencies have been dramatically escalating their suppression spending over the last 30 years. For example, in 1986 CalFire spent only $15 million total on suppression, but in 2017 the agency spent a record $947 million, far exceeding its budget (CalFire 2018). In all but one year in the 21st century CalFire has spent over $100 million—and sometimes several hundreds of millions—on firefighting, a huge surge in spending from earlier decades. But CalFire’s tactics remain rooted in a suppression-based approach that is proving more and more expensive and less and less effective in a 21st century climate. In fact, the last four years have seen the highest suppression spending in CalFire's existence—accompanied by huge urban fire disasters and record numbers of homes destroyed.

Expanding the fleet of airtankers would be a poor investment of taxpayer dollars

A signature example of a costly and increasingly ineffective 20th century approach to fire suppression is the emphasis on airtankers. Airtankers are one of the most expensive resources used in wildfire suppression, but several recent studies have found that airtankers are routinely deployed at times, places, and conditions where they are least useful or effective (Stonesifer et al. 2016; Stonesifer et al. 2015; Calkin et al. 2014; Thompson et al. 2012). They are particularly likely to be impaired by high winds associated with severe fire weather. CalFire regulation 8362.3.1.1 requires airtankers to be grounded when there is even moderate turbulence or windspeeds exceeding 35 mph (CalFire-B n.d.) Heavy smoke is another impediment to effective airtanker use. For example, while the Camp Fire raged through Paradise, a fleet of airtankers located literally next door in Chico was grounded by high winds and dense smoke.

Fighting fires in backcountry wildlands depletes resources needed to protect communities

Systematic attempts to exclude or suppress all fires regardless of whether or not they are near communities is costly to taxpayers and puts communities at risk from lack of suppression crews and resources actually protecting homes. For example, in 2016 a joint CalFire/USFS effort spent over $262 million on the Soberanes Fire that burned mostly in the Ventana Wilderness Area and became the most expensive wildfire suppression operation in U.S. history (Ingalsbee et al. 2018). A USFS internal investigation (USDA-FS 2017) concluded that the excessive spending reflected "systemic fire management issues" revolving around lack of fiscal accountability that have yet to be solved. These large expenditures on fire suppression in remote areas pull limited resources away from the actions that are most effective at preventing home loss during fires.

Recommendations:

• Wildland fires are ecologically necessary and inevitable, but losses of life and property in urban fire disasters need not be inevitable if we adopt new fire management policies and practices suitable for 21st century climate conditions. We need to move away from 20th century mechanized fire suppression strategies, tactics, and tools (e.g., large airtankers) that are inappropriate and increasingly ineffective in the current climate.

• Suppression resources should be redirected away from fighting fires in remote wildlands where fire is ecologically necessary and instead focused on directly protecting communities.

• Invest in preparing communities to live safely and sustainably in a fire-prone environment: retrofit homes to reduce home ignitability, improve emergency communications, maintain safe evacuation routes, construct community fire shelters, bury powerlines, and implement other infrastructure projects that could be part of a Green New Deal.