An investigation found that California Governor Gavin Newsom grossly exaggerated the amount of fuel reduction projects that have been completed on state lands, and he reduced the fire prevention budget.
From Capradio, June 23, 2021:
“An investigation from CapRadio and NPR’s California Newsroom found the governor has misrepresented his accomplishments and even disinvested in wildfire prevention. The investigation found Newsom overstated, by an astounding 690%, the number of acres treated with fuel breaks and prescribed burns in the very forestry projects he said needed to be prioritized to protect the state’s most vulnerable communities. Newsom has claimed that 35 “priority projects” carried out as a result of his executive order resulted in fire prevention work on 90,000 acres. But the state’s own data show the actual number is 11,399.
“Overall, California’s response has faltered under Newsom. After an initial jump during his first year in office, data obtained by CapRadio and NPR’s California Newsroom show Cal Fire’s fuel reduction output dropped by half in 2020, to levels below Gov. Jerry Brown’s final year in office. At the same time, Newsom slashed roughly $150 million from Cal Fire’s wildfire prevention budget.”
Update at 6:44 a.m. PDT June 24, 2021
Here are two other points of view:
The pandemic disrupted state operations at all levels and that includes the fuels reduction work of @CALFIRE_CHIEF + @CAL_FIRE – but they and the administration deserve credit for getting that work back on track and allocating the necessary $$$ to continue it in years to come.
— CA Forestry Association (@CalForests) June 24, 2021
While I always appreciate intrepid reporting, and have strictly scrutinized and sought to reform CA wildifre prevention strategy over the last few years, @CapRadioNews story today criticizing @CAL_FIRE & @GavinNewsom missed the mark. Here’s why ?
— Senator Henry Stern (@SenHenryStern) June 24, 2021
Never been to this website before, but kudos for providing showcasing contrary views on your articles!
Not that I totally buy the idea that a strategic fuel treatment results in the protection of untreated adjacent acres, but I am guessing someone along the line probably messed up here, misconstruing “acres treated” with “acres protected.” That’s careless and stupid, but understandable and not nefarious.
However, what is not excusable or defendable, is the reduction by the Newsome administration in dollars allocated to prevention.
I do want to know if, comparing apples to apples, how the number of acres treated under the Newsome administration compares to the same number of acres treated under the Brown administration.
I tracked down the thread by Senator Henry Stern. It gives a little more information to flesh out the brief “other view” you mentioned.
https://twitter.com/SenHenryStern/status/1407906410629763075
Basically he mentions that prescribed fire is not the only tool in the fuel reduction toolbox. Methods have to be adapted to account for differences in local fuels and populations.
Personally, I would love to have the resources now to buy a couple of forestry mowers and put some crews in the field doing land clearing/mulching. I suspect I could get a bunch of contracts for brush mowing around subdivisions.