The following article, written by Daniel Khieninson, is part of a two-part blog series on the role of land use regulations in mitigating wildfires. In recent years, the threat of wildfires has only grown more visible, and the statistics on fire damage bear this out. The most recent wildfires in Los Angeles have enacted a staggering toll on both human and financial resources. This threat is only projected to increase as the climate further changes due to both direct impacts, such as increased drying of vegetation, and more indirect impacts mediated by the ecosystem.
California and Colorado are some of the top states in the nation affected by wildfire in terms of numbers of homes at risk. This is due in part to expansion into the Wildland-Urban Interface, or WUI. This area, where human development meets the natural world, can be particularly vulnerable to wildfires and is growing rapidly. As our land use system controls how we plan and develop, it presents a strong controlling force. However, until recently, some have noted that land use planning is restricted in wildfire prevention, seeing use only in narrow provisions such as emergency road access or water supply while downplaying the underlying use of the land itself.
This two-part blog series will discuss two case studies that display innovative techniques these two states have used to address their risk of wildfire. These case studies explore how municipalities in both states utilize their land use power to promote the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens by fighting the threat of fire.
Santa Cruz, CA
Wildfires present a large and growing threat in the United States, particularly along the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This is the area where human development meets with wildland fuel, or vegetation, especially when this vegetation is dry or dead. In California, this threat is compounded by the ongoing crisis in housing supply, which has prompted further expansion into wildland areas, heightening exposure to fire risk.
Santa Cruz is a coastal county south of San Francisco with both a high WUI rating and high fire hazard risk. In August 2020, the CZU lightning complex fire burned a substantial portion of the county. Exploring how Santa Cruz addresses the problem of wildfire exposure provides invaluable insight into how other counties similarly situated can as well.
Santa Cruz primarily encourages adaptive measures such as vegetation management. This takes the form of clearing brush around properties and roadsides as well as prescribed burning in certain areas as outlined in Santa Cruz Code 7.92. Prescribed burns, in particular, are an important historical tool originally used by Native Americans that are now regaining some use.
Santa Cruz is a fire-adapted ecosystem and has experienced both natural and anthropogenic fire use for thousands of years. Suppression of fire has resulted in the buildup of a substantial fuel load, which Santa Cruz and the local Amah Mutsun Tribal Band have taken steps to diminish. Santa Cruz Code 16.32 also requires development in special forest areas to utilize prescribed burning. These practices can help to undo decades of fire suppression, but some argue they are a solution both too little, and too late.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Image Source.
The state of California also requires defensible space around structures within very high fire hazard severity zones. Defensible space is “the buffer between a structure and the surrounding area” which can prevent the spread of fire to a home. More locally, Santa Cruz mandates concentric zones beginning just around the structure as areas of fire safety precautions. These zones extend outward from zero to 30 feet, then 30 to 100 feet, with more stringent fire safety requirements are required within the closer proximity zone. These nested protective measures are designed to prevent fire from reaching the building itself. Vegetation management and removal of flammable materials are the most important elements of the code. The City of Santa Cruz requires all new housing construction and renovation in the WUI be flame resistant as of 2022. This necessitates resistant materials and barriers to embers, such as screens on windows and chimneys. Additional county requirements include road clearances and reliable sources of water, so that if fire does occur, emergency services can react quickly to mitigate the damage.
Santa Cruz further addresses fire risk by decreasing exposure along the WUI. SC County Code 17.01 seeks to delineate urban and rural areas, encouraging growth in more suitable places while conserving other locations as undeveloped.
Inevitable Risks
However, in the long-term, the risk of wildfire is likely to only grow, a fact acknowledged by the county itself. The economic costs associated with protecting remote houses will also grow more burdensome. Some advocate for alternate anticipatory strategies which seek to decrease the exposure of homeowners to fire, rather than trying to react to the problem once a disaster is in motion.
One such strategy is to limit development. This would prevent expansion into the WUI, but it comes with maladaptive drawbacks like decreasing the availability of homes. This may be an especially difficult policy to implement in a state with such high demand for housing. The well-intentioned policy of limiting exposure may inadvertently force people to move into hazardous areas elsewhere, rather than eliminating the risk.
In response to the risk of displacement, municipalities may consider managed retreat. This strategy is in fact mentioned in connection with Santa Cruz itself. While managed retreat is more frequently invoked in response to phenomena like sea level rise and flooding, it may prove to be effective in the realm of wildfires as well. In the long term, it may be less expensive to relocate people outside of the risk zone, however this comes at a very high up-front expense. Additionally, policymakers should consider whether these policies may become maladaptive, if for instance some homeowners become holdouts and demand higher prices before moving.
Butte County, CA
Burned trees in Butte County, CA following the Camp Fire of 2018. Image Source.
Recognizing some of these concerns, Butte County, CA, the site of the devastating 2018 Camp Fire, may present solutions. Namely, Butte County’s Upper Ridge Community Plan investigated transferred development rights (TDR) following the fire.
TDR is a scheme that decouples one of a property owner’s rights, the right to develop, from the others. The property owner then sells this right for use elsewhere. By selling the right to develop in an area of high risk, TDR lowers the chances of further property being threatened in this ‘sending’ area, and transfers the development to another, safer ‘receiving’ area. A sending site is an area wherein more development can occur, but where this development may be exposed to increased wildfire risk. By contrast, a receiving site can accommodate a higher development density than is currently allowed. This is a safer and more convenient location to build. The TDR program works to cluster development, incentivizing higher density in more urban areas with underlying support and infrastructure, while lowering density and limiting development in the WUI.
This program holds a number of benefits. First, it can address the risk of fire ex ante. It encourages movement away from a threat in a method similar to managed retreat. It can also lead to increased housing availability in more urban areas, lessening the chance of maladaptation from a restrictive policy. Because TDR can prevent building in the first place, rather than waiting until owners have put down roots, it may be easier to convince owners to engage in the program. Thus far, Butte County has only initiated early stages of the program, and it remains to be seen how effective it will be. It also depends on sufficient numbers of developers willing to go through the process of acquiring development rights and being able to increase density in receiving sites.
Despite these shortcomings, TDR holds promise as a solution incorporating elements of both managed retreat and development restrictions. It saves money in the long run, by preserving firefighting resources rather than expending them on remote locations. Additionally, it may allow for a more permissive burning policy – rather than trying to save homes, firefighters may allow certain natural areas to burn and diminish accumulated fuel.
Conclusion
The case studies discussed above showcase the pivotal role land use regulations can play in mitigating and adapting to the risk of wildfires. Municipalities threatened by wildfires should consider adopting the policies of Santa Cruz to address immediate risk. They should also examine the policies of Butte County because by adding a forward-thinking policy like TDR, the fire-prone municipalities can also seek to prevent, rather than just react to, future wildfire exposure.