Fire Safety and Technology Editorial

 

Wildland Fire Areas Regulation

An article in the August 1 Denver Post caught my eye and made me think. The article described how a particular Colorado community, Breckenridge, had successfully rejected a fire safety law requiring a "defensible space" without excessive trees to create fire breaks around mountain homes. Breckenridge is in a mountainous area within Colorado's wildfire-prone forests. The argument that won the day was that creating fire breaks "should be a homeowner's choice" just like the use of decorations or the installation of burglar alarms. The homeowners called this a "victory for individual liberty". I wonder whether the good citizens of Breckenridge will be equally happy to have each individual homeowner deal with the next wildfire or whether they will call firefighters for help.

In general, the risk of wildfires worldwide is constantly increasing, due to higher temperatures (global warming) and fewer wildland areas with no homes. The issue of wildland fires is particularly important in the (eleven) Western US States because both (see Table) the proportion of high-risk wildfire-prone areas with homes in them and the proportion of those homes that are seasonal are very significant. Therefore these areas face an increasing risk of wildfires threatening homes and the added danger of the homes being empty so that notification of firefighters will be delayed. Recent wildfire experience has shown that a delay in notification often results in more severe fires. Therefore, more firefighters will be involved or firefighters will have to expend more effort (and be under greater danger).

 

Many of us like to live in or near forests or mountains (I plead guilty!) even if, as we move further away from urban areas, almost any activity will require transportation (often by private car). One reason for this choice is that we like to have trees nearby (I plead guilty again!). However, this means that we also become ever more dependent on emergency responders (read firefighters) to help us out. Many of us like to express our individuality in various ways, especially at home (our homes are our private castles). Does that mean that we are entitled to choose risky behavior? It probably does. Does it mean that we have the right to actively endanger the lives of the firefighters, or other emergency responders, who will be responsible for helping us? It probably does not. And yet many of us do. There is a dividing line between our individual rights and the rights of society to protect its emergency responders, but it is not clear where it is.

Most of us in the fire safety community are active supporters of improved fire safety regulation: we tend to support requirements that upholstered furniture and mattresses exhibit improved fire safety, that more fire-safe materials be used in cars, that cigarettes be less likely to ignite fabrics, and so on. I have spent much of my professional life trying to improve fire safety for everyone. It is interesting, however, that many of us often feel that enhanced fire safety regulation is much less important in our own homes; many of us believe that responsible people are not likely to act foolishly. Again, I am embarrassed to plead guilty! In most cases this can remain a personal decision since the consequences of unsafe behavior will probably simply result purely in personal (or family) losses.

However, the issue of wildland fire safety regulation appears to be an area where the right to have individual freedom and the need to protect firefighters clash and the latter should probably win. Of course, that is just my personal (unbiased?) opinion. I want to read other people's opinions too.

Marcelo M. Hirschler