We All Suffer, We All Must Pay

By CHRISTINE KEHOE

E-MAIL STORY

Thursday, Nov. 05, 2009 | As California endures painful budget cuts and waits for its economy to recover, the threat of wildfires continues without regard to unemployment figures or economic forecasts.

This perfect storm of declining state revenues with an increasing need for resources both on the ground and in the air to fight wildfires is putting our state in a precarious situation -- one that undermines firefighting efforts and puts more lives and homes at risk.

Sen. Christine Kehoe

In September, I invited state emergency officials to testify about how prepared California is for fighting wildfires during what is traditionally our most intense fire season, when hurricane strength Santa Ana winds blow. What I heard at the San Diego hearing disturbed me: too few fire trucks positioned statewide; too few cities and local governments able to provide the same level of firefighting assistance as in years past; and too few funds available to purchase fire equipment in the coming years.

While California uses a mutual aid response system -- one that combines the resources of all levels of government to respond to disasters -- experts at the San Diego hearing testified that the system is at risk of unraveling because of a lack of funds at every level of government.

Just recently, an investigation was launched to determine whether firefighting resources were not requested by the U.S. Forest Service during the early hours of the Station Fire in Los Angeles County because of fears that the federal government could not reimburse state and local governments. At the same time, budget cuts to the San Diego Fire Department forced it to send only three fire trucks and their crew members to the Station Fire, instead of the usual six.

Fire officials testified that this depletion of resources is affecting departments throughout the state.

The situation is compounded by the increasing cost of fighting fires each year as climate change, drought, and housing development in more rural and isolated areas combine to burn hundreds of thousands of acres at a cost to the state of more than $1 billion a year.

As discouraging as the situation may be, there is a way out by raising new revenue dedicated to responding to emergencies within our state, including fighting wildland fires.

Over the last several years, proposals have been floated to have people living in state responsibility areas -- rural areas not within city boundaries -- pay for a share of the cost of fire prevention and suppression. I sponsored legislation last year which would have assessed each property owner $50 per year to fund fire prevention in areas where the state assumes wildfire fighting responsibility. The bill generated a lot of discussion, but did not pass the State Assembly.

Another measure I introduced last year would make it easier for local governments to raise funds for firefighting. The threshold needed for passing such a ballot measure would have been lowered from 66 percent to 55 percent. Again, this proposal died in the legislature.

This year I wrote a bill that aims to reduce property damage in backcountry areas by requiring that wildfire risk be taken into account more when planning new development. The bill, SB 505, passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger -- a big disappointment.

Meanwhile, the Governor has proposed generating additional revenue for all disaster response through a 4.8 percent fee on property insurance. The revenue would go directly to fund state and local fire and disaster response.

Given that much of the state is at risk at one time or another of mudslides, floods, earthquakes, wildfires, or other disasters, it makes sense to ask all property owners to help pay for the emergency services they need at the level they deserve.

As a former member of the Blue Ribbon Fire Commission established immediately after the 2003 wildfires, and with vivid memories of personal losses suffered by many families during the 2003 and 2007 San Diego fires, I know that until we identify a reliable funding source for fire prevention and fire suppression, it is the public that will suffer the most.

I will continue to work for stable, consistent funding for California’s fire fighting efforts.

Sen. Christine Kehoe represents San Diego in the California State Senate. You can reach her at senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov.

1

6 Comments so far on this story...

Cristine Kehoe the good tax and spend democrap. Waiting for the economy of Kalifonia to recover? With the democrap legislators and the repuking govenator fat chance of that happening anytime soon. A simple method to jump start the country's ecomony would be to reintroduce the law that allowed people to deduct interest paid on credit cards from their income taxes. Sales would rise, and tax revenue would be made up in the form of sales tax. a Win-Win rather then our current lose-lose. try it, you'll like it.

Posted by Street Creature | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 7:11 am

Sounds to me like a plea for more and higher taxes. Reducing the threshold for raising local government taxes just opens the door. I would never support that measure, nor would I support any Senator that proposes such a measure, including Kehoe. Look at what happened when they lowered the percentage required to raise school taxes. Billions have been squandered. We are still paying for those blunders. As for pitching in to help protect from fires and other disasters, I am willing to do my part. The government agencies must also do their part starting by reducing the lavish benefits and retirements that they provide to their employees.

Posted by handler | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 7:49 am

In general I agree that sharing costs for infrastructure and basic safety services makes sense. I'm pretty much in the left wing commie pinko camp. However, with some of the newer developments in areas that are clearly at high risk for fires with minimal access and water, I have to disagree. At some point if you want to go beyond the norms of safety, you need to be prepared to shoulder more of the cost. When I first heard about private fire protection in high risk (wealthy) areas I was appalled but I've kind of come around to the idea. Personally, I think it makes good sense for the developers to contract with that service as a selling point for the communities.

Posted by jenjen | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 8:23 am

Sen. Christine Kehoe is a typical California legislator which does not know that meaning of "cuts" and savings. I cannot believe that the world's 8th largest economy cannot find the funds for disaster relief. Sen. Kehoe, you are proposing setting up another bureaucracy which will turn into a self feeding monster. That is the exact attitude that has bankrupt the state. If you want more fire protection, cut money from other places. We are tiered of being taxation raped by you and your accomplices.

Posted by John | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 2:03 pm

We already pay among the highest taxes in the nation. If we give them more they will spend more. Not just for emergency services. Emergency services should have their highest priorities, but they spend billions on Illegals, welfare(beyond federal guidelines). They need to cut back and quit chasing business's and folks out of the State. How many of your friends have moved to Texas, Arizona, Nevada or the South. They are leaving for a better life.(cheaper leaving). Fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay for their spending.

Posted by lee | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 2:24 pm

I like Chris Kehoe. She was a thoughtful, bright city council member, much like Donna Frye, who listened and did her homework. But moving to the legislature has a corrupting influence on independent thought, and she now speaks the Sacramento line of ever increasing fees and taxes. The state government has grown steadily for several decades now, assigning itself more and more tasks that could better be handled at the local level. It's past time for a shakeup, whether it be through a constitutional convention or a mass firing of legislators by the electorate. Term limits have proven to be a non-solution; personally, I think them counterproductive because, once elected, a legislator serves out his or her full allotment of terms, simply because it's easier for ambitious candidates to wait until there is no power of incumbency to fight.

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 4:50 pm

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.