To: robert b furman who wrote (1420 ) 11/21/2018 7:09:34 AM From: Snowshoe Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 13801 Hi Bob, I once worked on a controlled burn in bucolic Wisconsin! The objective was to suppress juniper and honey locust that were invading a hillside prairie. By comparison, California is uniquely special case... Living on the Edge: Just as coastal communities must learn to live with hurricanes, communities that edge up against forests are going to have to learn to live with fire. slate.com So, California’s fire country faces a double-barreled threat: More lives and infrastructure lie in the path of potential fires than ever before. And the fires are getting bigger. That combination explains why 6 out of the 10 most destructive fires in California history have occurred in the past three years. So far, California is not doing much to discourage people from moving into its danger zones. Moritz, Naomi Tague, and Sarah Anderson, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, maintain that “people must begin to pay the costs for living in fire-prone landscapes.” They argue that currently, “the relative lack of disincentives to develop in risky areas—for example, expecting state and federal payments for [fire] suppression and losses—ensures that local decisions will continue to promote disasters for which we all pay.” (Disaster experts make a similar argument about how federal flood insurance and other programs encourage people to live in hurricane-prone areas.) One financial analyst who works closely with California utilities believes the inverse condemnation rule is part of this problem: “These communities are very dangerous to supply power to,” he says. “But the utility is forced to carry all the risk. They can’t charge their customers a premium for fire risk.”