Legal, illegal and quasi-legal pot farms all faced an extraordinary risk from the blazes. And those which were wiped out were not expected to return. In a report, the International Business Times noted, “because their crops are still illegal federally, these farmers can’t take advantage of wildfire safety net programs offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to other farmers and ranchers, and very few of these growers likely had marijuana insurance policies that have only recently been developed.”

That augured a sea change in the way marijuana is cultivated and sold in California, whose voters are expected to give strong consideration to legalizing recreational use of the product on the 2016 ballot.

Crops and consequences

Timothy Anderson, purchasing manager at Harborside Health Center, captured the problem in a series of interviews with local and national media. This August, he told NBC Bay Area that “about a quarter” of Harborside’s pot “comes from growers near Clear Lake, and the smoke from the fire is damaging another growers’ crops. He expects the drop in supply will raise prices around the Bay Area, for dispensaries who buy from outdoor grows.”

The risks posed to marijuana farmers by fire exceed those of other crops. “Unlike an apple or tomato, you can’t wash a cannabis plant off. The sticky resin is going to grab onto any environmental grit or grime from the air,” Anderson told NBC.

This month, amid the aftermath, he told the IB Times that the fires and the upcoming vote would likely combine to remake the market, to the advantage of larger corporate interests that traditional medical marijuana growers and supporters often fear will squeeze them out of business anyway. “Someone whose farm burns down or loses his crop and he doesn’t come back for a year, by that point our business relationship could have changed,” he told the paper. “Any time someone steps out of the market, you find someone else to replace him with.”

With statewide regulations in place, the IB Times observed, “now is not a good time for established cannabis growers to lose their foothold in the developing industry. ‘If you don’t have a crop in these crucial years,'” asked Anderson, “‘where are you a year or two down the road when the whole market is ready to shift?'”

Community costs

The loss of marijuana farms promised to worsen the fires’ adverse impact on the struggling rural counties it hurt most. “In Amador and Calaveras counties, the Butte fire has destroyed 475 homes, killed two people and burned through nearly 71,000 acres,” the Los Angeles Times reported. With the lucrative marijuana business largely shut down, and growers poised at best to restart their farms elsewhere, the economic impact could be pronounced.

In an effort to blunt the impact on medical marijuana smokers, who were doubly hit by the fires, two companies have offered not to charge for their products. “Care By Design and AbsoluteXtracts,” the Times noted, “are offering free products at five dispensaries in San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol and Lake County.”

“Patients eligible for the free products must have a prescription and home addresses in Cobb, Kelseyville, Middletown or Hidden Valley Lake — among the hardest hit communities over the last three weeks, where the Valley fire has ripped through 118 square miles, destroyed nearly 2,000 homes and claimed four lives.”

In the meanwhile, the shift away from traditional rural marijuana farming could exacerbate a worrisome trend closer to urban centers: large-scale residential grow houses. Rialto firefighters recently discovered that a renter was stealing electricity to help raise some 200 plants in a home he didn’t occupy, bypassing the meter to avoid detection, according to NBC Los Angeles.

“His announcement, which will help expedite debris removal and waive fees to replace essential documents like birth certificates for those who’ve had to abandon their homes and belongings, came one day after four firefighters were injured,” CNN reported.

The tally of affected counties included Lake, Napa, Amador and Calaveras. The growth of the blazes has been rapid. One fire, the Los Angeles Times noted, “spread southwest by almost 20,000 acres over the last two days to 119,069 acres in the area of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks […] as extended heat and wind have fueled its growth[.]”

Dire predictions

Brown also seized the opportunity to recast his environmental policies in terms that would raise the hackles of his Republican opponents. “What we see in Europe now, with mass migrations, that will happen in California,” he warned at a news conference in Sacramento County, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “Central America and Mexico, as they warm, people are going to get on the move. It’s a real challenge.”

Although some analysts have cautioned that shifting climate conditions could prompt huge population displacements around the world, Europe’s current crisis was merely suggestive. “Heat, rising sea levels and drought are expected to disrupt populations around the world in coming decades, though the current refugee crisis in Europe speaks to other causes of migration,” the Sacramento Bee noted. “Millions of people have fled Syria as a result of civil war.”

California’s fire season has given Brown a superficially powerful but subtly complicated way to dramatize the state’s environmental challenges. Although he insisted “that California has to be ready for more fires like the ones raging through Lake County, Gold Country and Kings Canyon National Park,” according to the Chronicle, he also noted “he has talked to fire officials who say they have never seen the kind of erratic behavior that fires are showing this year.”

Policy pushback

Critics frustrated by Brown’s dogged attempts to slash California emissions pointed out how quickly the fires have likely negated the impact of recent cuts. Quoting a 2007 study by National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder scientists, the Wall Street Journal asserted that “a severe fire season lasting only one or two months can release as much carbon as the annual emissions from the entire transportation or energy sector of an individual state.” One researcher, the Journal added, “estimated that southern California fires that burned for one week produced as much carbon dioxide as a quarter of the state’s monthly fossil-fuel emissions.”

Meanwhile, even some supporters of Brown’s emissions agenda took issue with California’s broader fire and forest management policies. In an editorial proclaiming that the climate has already changed, the Los Angeles Times addressed a litany of questions to policymakers:

“Is the way we manage our forests, such as making them less dense by removing younger trees, adding to the possibility of massive fires? Are we making the right decisions about funding and fire prevention? Do land-use policies that allow development to push deeper into forested regions take into account the mounting danger of wildfires? Do we have adequate financial resources to fight the new normal fire season? Does it even make sense to fight fires to the same degree?”

Ironically, Sacramento has come under attack for its fire prevention fee, which doesn’t go toward actually fighting blazes themselves. “The Brown administration declined comment. But a recent state report says the fee raises about $75 million dollars a year for efforts like identifying evacuation routes and clearing brush,” Valley Public Radio observed. “A taxpayers group has sued the state, alleging the fee is an unconstitutional tax. But a final ruling could take years.”

Fire politics

By making the crisis official, Brown boosted the state’s ability to fight the fires in two ways. First, as the Sacramento Bee noted, he triggered the mobilization of the National Guard. Second, in a move likely to deepen the frustration of climate change activists, he “relaxed some regulations like environmental rules” and prohibitions on trespassing.

In a statement, Brown praised the state’s responders, but warned that the situation was critical. “California’s severe drought and extreme weather have turned much of the state into a tinderbox,” he said, according to the Sacramento Bee. “Our courageous firefighters are on the front lines, and we’ll do everything we can to help them.”

Fighting meddlers

California’s fire trouble has been compounded by residents interfering with operations — or, at times, necessitating new ones. A Redding resident, for instance, was recently arrested on suspicion of starting 14 small fires in the area.

But to date, the most sensational problem caused by meddlesome individuals has been drone related. In three separate instances, private drones floating overhead posed enough of a threat to firefighting airplanes that their missions were delayed. “After the unmanned devices were spotted flying above flames and smoke from the blazes this year — which altogether burned about 36,000 acres — fire crews were forced to ground water-dropping aircraft,” the Los Angeles Times noted. “Officials said the delays allowed the fires to spread, resulting in devastating property losses.”

As a result, San Bernardino County officials have now ponied up $25,000 apiece, one reward per incident, for details about who’s responsible. “We want to know who was flying drones, and we want them punished,” said Board of Supervisors chairman Jorge Ramos, according to the Verge. “Someone knows who they are, and there is $75,000 waiting for them.”

California lawmakers, Slate reported, “proposed a pair of bills that would make flying drones over fires a misdemeanor carrying up to $2,000 in fines and shield emergency personnel from liability for swatting them out of the way.” And in Congress, Rep. Paul Cook, R.-Ca., introduced legislation that would make similar interference a federal crime worth up to five years behind bars.

Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, said SB168 would indemnify emergency responders who damage a drone during firefighting, air ambulance or search-and-rescue operations.

Earlier this month, aerial fire crews responding to a blaze that swept across Interstate 15 north of San Bernardino had to pull back after five drones were spotted above the fire.

It was the fourth time in a month that a drone had disrupted wildfire response in the region, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service. Gaines introduced SB167 earlier this summer to increases fines and introduces the possibility of jail time for drone use that interferes with firefighting efforts. Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, co-authored both bills.

“Private drones don’t belong around these emergencies. That is the first message I want to get out,” Gaines said in a news release. “But if one gets damaged or destroyed because it’s in the way then that can’t lead to financial penalty for the people trying to save lives and property. It’s unfortunate, but that’s all it is. People can replace drones, but we can’t replace a life. When our rescuers are risking their own lives to protect us, I want them thinking about safety, not liability.”

Gaines also said it’s his hope that the advent of effective “jamming” technology could keep drones away from emergency response areas and flight paths.

He went on to say that “public education efforts could ensure that the safest, least-damaging methods for avoiding or disabling unauthorized drones will be the primary methods used in these crises.”

In a phone interview on Friday, Gaines said its his understanding that the federal government is working on a technology that would jam a certain frequency used by private drones.

Some government agencies are already using drones, or have plans to do so, to monitor areas including wildfires.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

“In October 2003, the Cedar Fire … broke out in the Cleveland National Forest, started accidentally by a lost hunter trying to signal rescuers. It burned more than 2,800 structures and caused 15 deaths, almost entirely in East County. …

“In October 2007, the Witch-Creek fire broke out east of Ramona, triggered by a power line buffeted by Santa Anas. Before it was contained, the blaze destroyed more than 1,650 structures — with more than 300 in Rancho Bernardo, within San Diego city limits. Ten people were killed in the Witch-Creek blaze and other county wildfires that fall.”

Local, state, military and federal officials have been preparing for the next California fire apocalypse ever since. U.S Interior Secretary Sally Jewell even came to San Diego County last week to talk about wildfire preparedness and tout what the feds have done to help out, prompted by the state’s extreme drought.

Confidence in the face of chaos

What are these officials saying? There’s lots of grousing about homeowners who haven’t done enough to reduce fire risk by clearing their property of flammables. But by and large, they say they’ve been gearing up for years to prevent encores of 2003 and 2007, and that they think they’re up to the task. They cite additional personnel, big upgrades in technology and equipment, and a healthy emphasis on interagency cooperation.

This official confidence was evident in San Diego County on Wednesday even after a wild day in which at least seven separate wildfires brought out:

“[Officials] stressed that far more resources — both firefighters and equipment — were available than in 2003 and 2007, and that agencies were working well together.

“’This region is the best-prepared it’s ever been,’ said Dianne Jacob, the chairwoman of the county Board of Supervisors.

“’We’ve come a long way in the last 11 years,’ said county Sheriff Bill Gore.”

We shall see. In San Diego, the specter of multiple out-of-control wildfires is so scary that it’s tough to think from a broader perspective. But when you do think from that broader perspective, you start with the fact that there are only a few responsibilities that just about everybody thinks government should do and do well. The most obvious is public safety.

This year in parched California, millions of people with reason to worry about their safety have to hope that the local, state and federal governments rise to the challenge.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2014/05/15/ca-2014-fire-season-a-test-of-government-competence/feed/ 16 63651 https://calwatchdog.com/2013/04/12/ca-fire-chiefs-warn-state-fire-tax-will-hurt-not-help/ https://calwatchdog.com/2013/04/12/ca-fire-chiefs-warn-state-fire-tax-will-hurt-not-help/#comments Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:13:11 +0000 http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=40818 April 12, 2013

By Dave Roberts

The $89 million annual fire prevention fee imposed on rural Californians for the first time last year could, ironically, increase the chance that their houses will burn down in the event of a fire. The $135-$150 per home annual assessment, which critics believe is a tax, is having the perverse effect of making it more difficult for local fire districts to increase revenue in order to provide adequate fire protection.

That’s what has happened in the Placer Hills Fire Protection District, which covers 35 square miles in rural Placer County in the Auburn area. Ten years ago, the district placed a tax hike on the ballot, which passed easily with 73 percent of the vote. But when the district went back to the voters last November seeking an additional $83 per home annually to keep both of its fire stations open, it garnered only 53 percent of the vote, well short of the two-thirds needed to pass.

The voters who rejected it gave two reasons: 1) They had already paid $135 to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, not realizing that Cal Fire is a separate entity from the Placer Hills fire department and that it’s possible that none of that money would directly result in increased safety for their home. 2) They felt they couldn’t afford to pay the total of $218 for two fire tax hikes in the same year.

That was the bad news from Placer Hills Fire Chief Ian Gow, speaking to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday in support of SB 17 by Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Rocklin, which seeks to repeal the fire fee.

Fire fee ‘decimates’ local protection

“All of us [California fire districts] are struggling financially,” said Gow. “That’s not a secret. My department has lost 12 to 15 percent of its budget over the last five years. That equates to two full-time fire positions. I only staff two fire stations. The likelihood of closing a station is very high. The problem there is that it could double our response times. As you may imagine, for fire departments the quicker we can get there is everything. If I have to close a station due to budget losses, I’m in deep trouble and my constituents are. So the inadvertent effect of this fire fee is to decimate local government’s ability to protect itself.

“The other two problems with the fee is that it doesn’t improve fire protection at all in my fire district. It does nothing to help us. Our citizens see it as double taxation. And, frankly, maybe a smaller effect, but I think it damages all of our reputations. It looks like we don’t know what we are doing from my level, with respect, up to yours. So we have real problems with this fee and we’d love to see it go away.”

Despite Gow’s testimony, SB 17 failed, gaining only three aye votes from the nine-member committee.

“I am extremely disappointed that the committee failed to pass this bill,” said Gaines in a press release. “It was an opportunity to make things right with the 825,000 Californians stuck paying the illegal tax. I would like to thank all of the constituents who came from across the state to testify in support of the bill. Their messages and testimony were impactful and made a difference. I vow to continue fighting this in every way possible and encourage those who have gotten stuck paying this phony fee to get in the arena and fight it too.”

The California Fire Chiefs Association has endorsed SB 17. Also on hand to support SB 17 were a half-dozen fire chiefs and officials from Camp Pendleton, Laytonville, Vacaville, and San Diego and Sacramento counties, along with scores of taxpayers wearing t-shirts with the slogan “Burned by the Fire Tax!”

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the fire assessment. HJTA representative David Wolfe told the committee that the fee is actually a tax because it does not provide a direct benefit to those paying it. If the court decides it is in fact a tax, then it would have required two-thirds to pass in the Legislature, which the enabling legislation, AB X1 29, did not receive due to strong Republican opposition.

Desert, condo examples show unfairness of tax

“We believe it can’t possibly be a legitimate fee because there is no direct benefit,” said Wolfe. “Just a couple of examples of plaintiffs in our lawsuit. There’s one individual who lives in a mobile home park in the middle of the desert with no landscaping around the mobile home park. And yet he has to pay the tax. There’s another individual, a property owner who lives next door to a casino. The homeowner has to pay the tax, but the casino does not. How is that fair?”

Also decrying the unfairness of the fee was Skip Daum, representing the Community Associations Institute, which represents homeowners associations throughout the state. He said that condominium owners are being hit with the $150 fee (the $135 fee is for those who are also paying a local fire tax), but that fee is only supposed to be assessed against the owner of a habitable structure.

“Condominium owners only own the air space inside the wallpaper, they don’t own the structure,” said Daum. “The homeowners association owns that structure.”

Condo owners are among the 87,000 property owners who have filed appeals of the fire assessment since it went into effect last August. Most of the appeals are based on the contention that it is an illegal tax. Those appeals are being automatically rejected, according to a Cal Fire spokesman.

The illegality of the tax is also Gaines’ main justification for repealing the assessment.

“If it’s illegal, we shouldn’t be collecting it,” he told the committee. “That will be sorted out in the courts. All of us as taxpayers pay state taxes for Cal Fire. It has always been their responsibility in these state responsibility areas to pick up that obligation. Now if you have got communities that are stepping forward and wanting to pay for their own fire departments, we have put a huge damper on that opportunity now because people are paying a [Cal Fire] tax.”

Where are the benefits?

Gaines’ other justification for SB 17 is that rural residents are not seeing the benefits for their money.

“We’ve had no evidence that there’s been any increase in manpower or fire engines from Cal Fire,” he said. “The discussion and debate we are having would be very different if this was a fee and we knew exactly what we would be getting for the fee. It might be defensible. Clearly we need more manpower and equipment around Lake Tahoe. I’m very concerned about that. We are having another dry year. If we were clear on what we are getting for that fee, we might not be here. We would be having a different discussion on whether it was worthy or not. I have supported fees historically in this body.”

According to AB X1 29 and regulations adopted by the Cal Fire board, the fee will fund a variety of fire prevention services, including defensible space inspections around structures, fuel breaks for staging firefighting equipment, brush clearance around communities and improving forest health to improve resiliency to wildfires.

But, as previously reported by CalWatchdog.com, the funds can pretty much be used for any projects or activities that the board labels “fire prevention.” That leaves open the possibility of the money being abused, as occurred with a $3.66 million slush fund that the Los Angeles Times revealed earlier this year to Cal Fire’s embarrassment.

Cal Fire did not send a representative to the committee meeting to defend the fee or explain how it is spending the $73 million that has come in so far.

That concerned Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, who told Gaines, “You have raised some concerns, and I do think they need to be addressed. [There] are very legitimate questions and concerns that people have about how they are conducting and using these funds.”

But Jackson voted against SB 17, arguing that it’s premature to legislate the issue before the court has ruled on the legitimacy of the fire assessment. She’s also concerned about leaving Cal Fire short of funds to provide adequate fire suppression.

“I come from a district that tends to burn down pretty regularly, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties,” she said. “I’ve been evacuated [from my home] twice in the last six to eight years. Obviously this [fee] has some serious problems. People are paying all this money and not understanding what the tax is. I’m not sure I do either. But … how are we going to keep funding the services we so desperately need, clearing defensible space and making sure we are doing everything in advance of a fire to make sure we don’t have fires, or at least their impact is minimized?”

Her concerns were shared by several other senators, leading to the bill’s defeat.

Other legislation targets fire assessment

But two other bills seeking to kill the fire prevention assessment are due to be heard in committees this legislative session: AB 23 and AB 124. In addition, Gaines has two other bills limiting the assessment. SB 147 would exempt certain low-income residents from having to pay the assessment. SB 125 would exempt property owners who are also paying for local fire services, which includes more than 95 percent of the fee payers.

And AB 468 by Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-North Coast, would replace the fire fee with a 4.8 percent surcharge on all property insurance in California that would be used by Cal Fire, the California Emergency Management Agency and the California Military Department.