May 06, 2008 Issue | Updated May 12 2:51pm 
Dec 11, 2007 8:00 AM
California's wildfires are inevitable
BY C.J. FOTHERINGHAM, JON E. KEELEY AND PHILIP W. RUNDEL
In the last century, a greater proportion of Southern California has burned than that of any other part of the country. Chaparral shrublands — not forest — cover much of our landscape and account for the vast majority of what burns. The U.S. Forest Service, which devotes more than half of its budget to fire-related activities, spends most of that money to protect residences built in these shrublands.
Yet, for the second time in less than a decade, wind-driven fires have caused at least $1 billion in damage. It is clear that it is time to re-evaluate the wildfire problem and how we deal with it as a matter of public policy.
There is much confusion over the causes and behavior of these fires. Some people contend that fire suppression is itself responsible for the catastrophic events, because it has allowed for an unnatural accumulation of flammable vegetation. But while it’s true that fire suppression has affected fire behavior and intensity in many forests, it is not true for the chaparral that constitutes much of Southern California’s undeveloped land, and for more than 95% of what burned in October.
Fire suppression over the past century has failed to eliminate fire on these landscapes. In fact, recent Forest Service estimates suggest that most of the area has burned more often in the past 100 years than in prior centuries. So it’s not as if we have allowed more flammable vegetation to accumulate than when nature alone was in charge.
In any case, fires pushed by strong Santa Ana winds are only weakly affected by the amount of fuel in their path. This is evident from October’s fires, which consumed more than 60,000 acres of the same landscape in San Diego County that burned in the 2003 inferno.
In other words, even the extensive burning just four years ago did little to stop the recent fires. In addition to being inaccurate, the theory that fire suppression is responsible for large destructive wildfires is outright dangerous. It casts blame on firefighters and even suggests that we stop suppressing fires on shrublands, even though they are home to a large population. Moreover, this theory shifts our focus away from real solutions that are strongly tied to local land-use planning and development patterns.
Large, high-intensity wildfires are a natural feature of our landscape, and we have limited ability to stop those that begin during the autumn Santa Ana winds. The best we can do is alter our behavior in ways that limit our vulnerability.
Trying to eradicate all chaparral wildfires in Southern California will continue to be futile. With the population expected to double in the next 40 years, we can expect fires only to increase. We should think of them as we think of earthquakes: we can’t stop them, so we must accept them as a natural hazard and learn how best to withstand them.
Fotheringham is a doctoral candidate, Keeley an adjunct professor and Rundel a professor, all in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. A longer version of this article appeared in the New York Times last month.
FEEDBACK: Would you like to comment on this Voices column? We'd like to hear from you. Please limit your written remarks to 200 words or less
