Why fire is sprawling into the suburbs

Seeing California ablaze along with the Canary Islands in Spain, I am reminded of a childhood memory: my mother and grandmother debating whether to burn our fields in Argentina.

My grandmother advocated for controlled burns, believing they eliminated pests and weeds while enriching the soil after rain. She felt such measures were crucial for preventing accidental wildfires from lightning or discarded cigarettes.

In contrast, my mother preferred letting the fields grow wild. Inspired by Silent Spring, she envisioned a nature reserve filled with native plants, delighting in her tranquil space, which she dubbed “El Bosque” — Spanish for “The Forest.”

Our neighbors were less enthused about her vision, prompting her to till the fields in front of the house. My grandmother complained about the uneven ground, but my mother insisted on patience, trusting that nature would restore balance.

The question remains: should we burn or not? Does controlled burning mitigate larger wildfires, or does it merely release more carbon? In this discussion, we dive into this contentious topic.

There have always been fires and there will always be fires.

We cannot oppose nature. Fuel sustains fire — either we manage it, or it will ignite on its own.

Since vegetation first appeared on Earth, wood has decayed, broken down, or burned. However, the current firefighting strategies are harming our ecosystems, raising doubts about their effectiveness.

Devastating fires are a symptom: we are not successfully managing forests and grasslands.

We must ponder the surge in wildfires: Why are they more frequent? Why can’t we control them? Why are they so destructive?

The answers can be categorized into three main areas.

#### 1. We must improve land-use organization and planning.

Conflicting land uses — including agriculture, reforestation, and urban development — are increasingly overlapping.

Significant fire damage necessitates a reevaluation of how human activities align with the land’s needs.

Overuse or misuse of land leads to degradation, diminishing productivity and disrupting ecological balance. Erosion heightens fire risks.

We must ensure human activities do not disturb the delicate interplay of temperature, precipitation, and humidity, all of which influence soil moisture and vegetation resilience.

#### 2. Climate change is fanning the flames.

Extended droughts, rising temperatures, and strong winds elevate the likelihood of ignitions and intensify flames.

To address climatic extremes, we should bolster landscapes with effective fire-resistance strategies, enhance resilience efforts, and implement agile emergency responses.

#### 3. Unresolved conflict between science and policy creates uncertainty around best practices.

Debates over basic land management practices have led to mixed messages for practitioners. Collaboration between public and private sectors is crucial for streamlining land maintenance and responding to wildfires effectively.

Root cause assessments are uncomfortable but necessary.

Wildfires can be ignited by careless actions, such as a hiker’s carelessness or a discarded cigarette. Identifying these causes can be politically sensitive, revealing significant financial and legal liabilities.

In 2017, a wildfire in Bel Air, caused by a homeless camp cooking fire, destroyed properties worth $20 million. Similar incidents have occurred since, causing fear among vulnerable populations.

In 2019, electric utilities faced scrutiny after investigations revealed that several destructive wildfires in the San Francisco Bay Area were initiated by faulty power lines.

Notably, 6 of the 10 most destructive fires in California history were linked to electrical equipment.

Fire investigations are crucial; understanding the cause helps improve fire risk management and prevents recurrent disasters.

While homeless encampments pose challenges, the City of Los Angeles has proposed controversial measures to manage these areas in fire-prone zones.

Conversely, Pacific Gas & Electric was obligated to pay $11 billion due to wildfire-related damages from their equipment.

We cannot afford to keep responding to forest fires with more extinction measures.

In addition to fire-related losses, the United States is spending $1 million daily on wildfire suppression, totaling over $1 billion annually (Timothy Ingalsbee, 2015).

As fire-related expenditures rise, so too do the number of homes lost and firefighters' lives.

Continuing to pour resources into firefighting efforts — helicopters, emergency teams, and specialists — will not resolve the underlying issues.

To burn, or not to burn — that is the question.

The effects of fire hinge on its intensity and duration, influenced by the amount of plant material consumed.

Timber and shrubs produce slow, intense fires, while grass fires spread quickly and minimally affect soil health.

Returning to the argument between my mother and grandmother — both had valid points.

#### Controlled fire can be good.

When our fields were primarily grass, controlled burns were beneficial. As my grandmother noted, grass fires release nutrients and redistribute them throughout the soil.

However, these low-intensity fires can lead to nitrogen and sulfur losses, though these are minor compared to the nutrient pool in the upper soil layers.

Fast-moving fires can eliminate surface bacteria and fungi, yet these organisms quickly return from deeper soil layers. Interestingly, increased microbial activity can occur with the nutrient influx post-fire.

After a fire, introducing new plant material is vital for sustaining soil ecosystems, which explains the historical use of horse manure as fertilizer.

Nevertheless, while manure application post-fire has proven beneficial, it is often overlooked at larger scales. This warrants further exploration.

#### Controlled fire can also be bad.

Once my mother transitioned the grassland into a “nature reserve,” controlled burns became less effective.

Intense shrubland fires consume organic matter, depleting soil nutrients and hindering aeration and water retention, ultimately undermining nutrient absorption from ash or fertilizers.

Moreover, severe fires can generate a water-repellent layer on the soil surface, impacting water infiltration for extended periods.

These conditions elevate runoff and erosion risks, increasing the likelihood of future wildfires on already parched soils. (Water-repellent layers typically do not develop in grassland fires.)

Severely burned vegetation creates an excess of nitrates, with few active roots to absorb either the nitrates or soil moisture, potentially harming ecosystem productivity but manageable in agricultural settings.

To mitigate these adverse effects in forested areas, employing low-intensity ground fires can clear away thick layers of debris on the forest floor.

These controlled burns can also eliminate small trees and shrubs that act as fuel ladders, escalating wildfires into larger trees.

As wildfires sprawl into the suburbs, our approach is starting to change.

We are beginning to understand that a century of misguided forest management has suppressed the role of natural fires.

Consequently, where forests and grasslands meet urban areas, an accumulation of combustible materials has multiplied fire-fighting expenses and escalated property destruction.

In 2019, Pacific Gas & Electric preemptively shut off electricity to millions in California to mitigate wildfire risks. This contentious approach aims to protect dry landscapes from potentially hazardous power lines.

Adapting requires time and financial investment. According to Pacific Gas & Electric, customers should anticipate rolling outages for another decade while the company upgrades its infrastructure to cope with climate risks.

If we see our environment as a sacrosanct space of non-intervention, fires will continue.

If we allow only “natural” processes to unfold, wildfires will persist unchecked.

Recognizing fire’s significance means acknowledging our value for the land. Therefore, we must manage it responsibly.

Separating “humanized” areas from “natural” landscapes is a grave error if we seek to understand how both human and non-human entities can coexist.

Wildfires help maintain ecosystem integrity.

Political leaders, officials, media, and citizens must acknowledge that outright suppression of wildfires is neither feasible nor sustainable.

In The Economics of Forest Disturbances, T.P. Holmes states that 98% of wildfires in the U.S. are aggressively extinguished, while the remaining 2% account for 94% of firefighting costs.

Larger fires incur higher per-acre firefighting costs. Data indicates that preventing land from burning over multiple seasons leads to more intense fires when they do ignite. Delaying burns results in wildfires that are harder to control.

Bravery is fear walking.

While fire-fighting is essential to protect lives and property, we must become more comfortable with fire’s presence.

It is natural to fear fire — an ancient instinct. However, if a fire becomes extraordinary, something has gone awry.

We must permit extensive wildlands to be subjected to mixed-severity wildfires or prescribed burns annually. This requires:

1. Shifting the prevailing mindset from preserving land as untouched to actively restoring ecosystems.
2. Adjusting standard wildfire responses from aggressive suppression to strategic fire utilization.

I am genuinely concerned about the catastrophism surrounding climate risks.

We must invest in innovations in science, technology, and policies that help us manage our fears and coexist harmoniously with nature.

Our journey toward solutions for adapting to a changing climate continues, and in a forthcoming CLIMURGENCY post, we will explore innovative policies and technologies in land management.