As scientists who study how vegetation ignites and burns, we recognize that well-maintained plants and trees can actually help protect homes from wind-blown embers and slow the spread of fire in some cases. So, we are concerned about new wildfire protection regulations being developed by the state of California that would prohibit almost all plants and other combustible material within 5 feet of homes, an area known as “Zone 0.”
As per usual, politicians coming up with half baked plans without consulting scientists or going with scientific recommendations.
The appearance of doing something about a problem is much easier and more politically expedient than actually doing something about a problem.
Sometimes half measures also just get a ball rolling so real measures can be done by showing that the half measures wernt enough.
It’s the most expensive way to do anything, but people are so good damn against starting ANYTHING if it’s not a perfect solution. That just getting people to accept a change at all is the hardest part typically.
Why Even Live
It sounds a bit catch-22. They are struggling with having enough fresh water so that maintaining greenery can be difficult if not against watering restrictions.
During the drought different neighborhoods are only allowed to water their lawns/outdoor plants on prescribed days of the week. Not that it’s particularly enforced, but it’s often there.
There are plenty of plants that can subsist on minimal irrigation.
Surely a raging wildfire couldn’t jump 5 feet.
580 WILDFIRE: Wildfire jumps Highway 580 and shuts down freeway
Fire breaks like this are already mandatory in some parts of the state due to the danger and potential for wildfires. Though, the places I know that have this requirement, it’s 10 feet not just 5.
that well-maintained plants
I get it, but I wouldn’t want the existence of my house to depend on my neighbor’s grounds keeping skills and fidelity. Or even more realistically, their house depending on mine.
Or on whether there’s a drought and watering shrubs is allowed
Green firewalls. That’s all we need
Just pour concrete everywhere at this point.
Cover me in concrete!!! I’m fireproof!
I think it makes sense in some areas, but not all. Some houses have pretty much zero wildfire risk so it’s unnecessary.
Literall the first thing ChatGPT suggests…
As a general rule, I don’t recommend using ChatGPT or any LLM to learn about what to do in life and death situations. Even if (by chance) you happen to get real and useful results, isn’t your life more valuable than the time it would take to find an actual answer from an expert?
Read your reply:
Remove dead vegetation. OP’s article specifically states that the new bill Gov. Dipshit is trying to fast track would ban all plants and vegetation from within 5’ of a dwelling, including grass. This is now likely to include wood fences, wood pergolas, etc. My question is, what about people who’s houses are sided with wood? I live in the mountains here in CA, and most houses are wood sided. We have strict weed abatement rules as well as defensible space requirements, but like the article says, removing healthy trees and other greenery is actually more of a detriment in a fire scenario. A bigger emphasis should be promoting fire-resistant building materials, and perhaps tax incentives to do so. Metal roofs, plaster/concrete siding, etc.
Agreed. As we saw a few months back, 5 feet is nothing when you have triple digit windspeeds sending ash, embers, and still on fire bits of tree along.
That’s in the article too.
I don’t know their reasoning for the 5’ and I live in a different climate, but ….
- sides of my house with shrubs tend to catch dead leaves, weeds,brush
- sides of my house without, all those dead leaves blow away
Maybe it’s as simple as avoiding things that catch dead leaves near the house
The 5’ is called defensible space here in the mountains, it gives firefighters room to work.
