Homeowner Responsibility for Protecting Their Homes from Wildfire

When a home is lost as wildfire moves through forests and grasslands, it is not surprising that we blame the loss on the wildfire. After all, those wildfires usually originated at sites far removed from our homes and it was the forests and grasslands that brought the fire to them.

But home loss to wildfire is not some random act of god or simply the result of stupid forest management policy. Not all homes confronted by wildfire burn; only some do. In addition, homes that are not built in the middle of fire-prone forests are not burned by forest fires.

The issues here are similar to those associated with homes built on a river’s flood plain or homes and other structures built in earthquake prone areas. The public cannot be the primary source of protection for these buildings since it is the homeowner who decides where to build the home, how to construct the home, and how to maintain it in a way that minimizes the damage from an expected and natural event.

Forest fires rarely burn homes because of the intense radiant heat from the fire’s flames. Instead, wildfire reaches the home by traveling along the ground, using fuels that the homeowner has either planted or allowed to accumulate there. Alternatively the fire is carried by firebrands to flammable roofs, pine needles in rain gutters, or, even, into homes through open windows. If homes are constructed with appropriate materials, if the grounds and home are maintained to reduce ground fuels, and if there is water available to keep the home and surroundings moist, the wildfire will pass the house by, relatively undamaged.

Although Montanans reacted in shock to all of the close calls with wildfires this last summer, other states have confronted the problem of homes in highly flammable landscapes many years ago because of their regular confrontations with wildfire. Think about all of those California brush and forest fires that regularly consume entire neighborhoods in the fashionable canyon areas.

Montana’s governor raised exactly this question of homeowner responsibility for choosing to live in harm’s way. He also recognized that trying to regulate home location and character raised difficult property rights questions. But these are not new questions. Almost all of us build our home subject to local and state building codes that enforce certain fire and safety standards. People may or may not be able to build on a flood plain; if they can, the house and sewage system have to meet certain standards. All buildings in earthquake-prone areas have to meet earthquake codes. Coastal states have hurricane construction standards.

Counties in wildfire-prone areas have begun adopting similar codes to increase the survivability of homes. In Summit County, Colorado, those who wish to build in forested areas have to use fire resistant materials, install sprinklers, cut back trees, and keep enough water on hand in large cisterns to douse an out-of-control blaze. In Orange County in Southern California and the Sun Valley area of Idaho similar codes to protect against wildfire damage to homes have been adopted. In subdivisions, wider streets are required as both firebreaks and to allow easier escape and access by fire equipment. On some locations, for instance steep slopes where fire can spread very rapidly, building is simply banned.

Insurance companies and local firefighting units have a role to play to in education and enforcement. Regular inspections of homes in fire-prone areas can alert both homeowners and firefighters about growing ground fuel problems or home maintenance problems that increase the likelihood of a home igniting when a wildfire is near. Insurance companies could insist on regular certification by the local firefighting agency before they will renew fire insurance. Homeowners, of course, would be responsible for paying for the inspections.

None of this will sit right with most of us Montanans. We are used to doing things as we please and being left alone. But when the fires rage, we are not left alone. Fire fighting personnel and equipment camp out at our doorstep waiting to risk their lives to protect our homes. The federal and state government picks up the tab. Some of us demand that the entire forested landscape be fire proofed, as laughable a concept as stopping a hurricane or earthquake, at a cost of billions of taxpayers’ dollars.

Picking the pockets of our neighbors and millions of unknown fellow citizens to help subsidize our decision to live in areas where wildfire is one of many natural processes is not a noble expression of freedom and liberty. It is simply freeloading. We have to be willing to do our share to reduce the danger and cost to our neighbors when we choose to live in harm’s way. Nothing else is fair. Our fabled independence demands it.