California’s new Governor, Jerry Brown, facing a budget crisis, is proposing significant reductions in funding for CalFire. Here is an excerpt from MercuryNews:
…Brown’s budget also proposes major changes to the way California battles wildfires. It calls for reducing the number of firefighters on CalFire engine crews from four to three — putting them back to staffing levels that existed before massive wildfires charred the state in 2003. It also would shift a significant amount of fire fighting responsibility that CalFire now oversees to cities and counties.
Currently, fires are fought by three main entities in California. Within municipal areas, city fire departments respond to blazes. Roughly 50 percent of California’s land area is federally owned. There, fire crews from the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies have responsibility.
And on most of the land in between, rural areas across roughly 31 million acres known as “state responsibility areas,” CalFire is in charge.
Brown’s budget proposes that cities and counties take over more fire fighting responsibility in those areas. It says that $250 million could be shifted from the state fire budget to local agencies, and CalFire’s service area reduced. If that money were shifted, it would represent nearly one-third of CalFire’s fire fighting budget from the state general fund.
With all the areas to cut this is more than insane to put the burden on struggling counties and townships who have little or no public funds.
Without question we need to get these safety and wildlife funds viable by elimanating over-the-top bizaroworld enviromental regulations and creating thousands of life substaning and revenue creating jobs.
For those interested in Cal Fire they have a web site. Cal Fire is a full-risk fire department, not a resource agency. Laying-off fire fighter (isn’t there a high rate of unemployment already?) and cutting services only increases suppression cost. Pay me now or really pay me later. Same “old” Brown.
This is not just a firefighter staffing issue: the tax paying public wants all of the services they now receive (and sometimes more!), but want less taxes and less big government in their lives. Less crime and a stronger police presence; get criminals off of the streets and into prisons; more buses and mass transit; fewer potholes in our roads; more lanes on busy hiways; an engine at every house when there is a fire in the WUI; better medical care but no Obama-care. If someone knows the answer to these conflicting wants and needs, I’d vote them “King” for a lifetime.
There ius no savings in this proposal. Local Government is not equipped to take the lead role in this area. CAlFire will still be called on to respond/mannage and pay for incidents, which will cost more. The CalFire model currently in place is the most effective and cost beneficial way to handle the wildland situation. If this new proposal happens—watch for the expensive consequences!
A typical politician response, without weighing the unintended consequences. Cutting CalFire just SHIFTS the financial burden, it doesn’t save any money. It just takes it from someone else’s budget. Cities and counties in most areas aren’t any better of than the states. And if initial attack resources are cut, and fires get larger before they are controlled, they’ll likely spend far more than they are saving from misguided staffing cuts, not to mention loss of property and possibly life.
I don’t really know how CA does wildland fire, so this may be a dumb question. Would this make Cal more in line with some eastern states, where the state provides type 6 engines, ICs, hand crews, and tractor plows, and the county and city mainly provide larger engines and structural protection?