Orange San Diego: Fighting Fire with Fire; Bush Policy Burns California

[Land Shark]

To the full extent of federal involvement in the fires in Orange County and San Diego County (and California generally), it is once again a story of

(1) specific warnings (issued for example by the GAO) about inadequate federal preparedness to intelligently fight wildfires,
(2) combined with inaction,
(3) leading to the warnings becoming a nightmarish reality, similar to what happened with Katrina's levees, and 9-11's warnings.

This time it's a June 1, 2007 GAO Report that's specifically to follow up on prior warnings about inadequate and unclear strategies to fight wildfires, and especially on spending money wisely. See Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires GAO-07-655 http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-07-655&accno=A70165

The main points of the report are that agencies, despite prior reports suggesting or requiring them to do so, (1) failed to develop "analytical tools that assist officials in identifying and implementing an appropriate response to a given fire," and, despite what would seem like an increasing need for firefighting resources, the GAO report heavily stresses a goal in significant tension with emergency preparedness: "Cost-containment."

Despite the merits of fiscal conservatism in frequent instances, the one thing we expect the government to do is to provide aid and response in emergency situations, to be Johnny on the spot, and not be thinking about saving a buck on gas costs while racing to the fire by doing 55mph.

Can you imagine the heart-rendering stress of even wondering if a lifetime of memories would just go up in smoke? (much less actually experiencing that). Think of the survivor's guilt when some homes get burnt to the ground by flying embers while others stand untouched. Or what if fate placed someone on vacation, and they are tortured by what they might have done if they'd been home? Americans are hard pressed to accept the reality of true tragedy, it seems there must always be blame, reaction, compensation, conversion, baptism by fire. Like the familiar cliche after 9-11, a big part of us wants to say "the fires changed everything."

And yet the fires change nothing, especially after a little time goes by and things settle back to some normalcy.

There's a strong element of tragedy here, record drought, rare but predictable Santa Ana winds, the luck of the falling embers.

There's a minor note of personal responsibility in a few cases where folks built in clearly the more dangerous areas, but then again I presume they were able to obtain fire insurance as required for all mortgages and insurance companies are hawks when it comes to risk, so the risk (while enhanced) can not be said to be extreme, except in unfair retrospect.

There's a rip in the fabric of normal life that allows us to reflect on what's important. Even neighbors who were bickering and feuding can have a truce and join arms to fight a common enemy.

But there's also a major duty on the part of government to be prepared for these disturbances of public order: Fire, ambulance, defense.... these things together with elections are certainly core callings of government, not mere "details" at all. The whole reason we form fire departments is that it is impossible for us to individually fight fires or save our own lives, a community response of firefighting or ambulance is critically necessary.

So was the federal government prepared to save Southern California? The June 1 2007 GAO Report says No, federal firefighting strategies were not clear, and the overall focus was on saving bucks. This is the same claimed reason for not repairing or reinforcing the levees in New Orleans. Cost-cutting.

Much of the California National Guard is in Iraq. That war is now costing every man woman and child in America $8,000.00. Certainly only a fraction of the fires involved directly federal lands, but just like Katrina real disasters overwhelm the ability of even large states to respond. Response and help always have to come from outside. I certainly would vote to cut my Iraq contribution from $8000 to $7980 in order to afford the $20 per person I'm guessing would be more than enough extra to have a robust "wildfire homeland security" program.

The orange skies of San Diego should permanently change only one thing: Our attitude toward the federal government, it's core priorities and missions, and when and where saving a buck is appropriate. Cost containment should normally always be a background concern, but it is hardly ever the #1 concern when it comes to things like this.

The devastation of these fires reaches far beyond San Diego. It's another form of terror, a large chunk of it government-enhanced, that forces us to think "there but for the grace of God go I", forces us to retreat to "security", to feel vulnerable and fearful, as if ANYTHING could happen. Might as well stay home much more and not venture out into the dangerous world, much less do politics. I mean, what if you were at a charity event or something and your house burned down when you were away indulging in some of your higher values? Should this guilt keep us at home?

While there are surely elements of tragedy in these fires, the core safety and security of our populace, the core thing that ENABLES us to engage in the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, is a #1 government responsibility.

The June 1, 2007 GAO report begins a strong showing that again our government failed us, once again, in national disaster preparedness. Individual interest like saving on a few tax dollars trumped long term public interest. That's how Bush policy is burning California, and burning all Americans. Though it's true that fighting fire with fire may only leave one with ashes, ashes are the proper fate of the governmental philosophies that simply fiddle before, during, and after the fire.