[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHAT THE OCTOBER WILDFIRES REVEALED ABOUT PREPAREDNESS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-162
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-627 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAN BURTON, Indiana
DIANE E. WATSON, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
Jaron R. Bourke, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 10, 2007................................ 1
Statement of:
Morris, Tony, founder and researcher, Wildlife Research
Network; Jeffrey Bowman, former fire chief, city of San
Diego Fire-Rescue Department; Tracy Jarman, fire chief,
city of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department; P. Michael
Freeman, fire chief, Los Angeles County Fire Department;
Chip Prather, fire chief, Orange County Fire Authority;
Ruben Grijalva, director, Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection; and Ron Roberts, chairman, Board of
Supervisors, County of San Diego........................... 16
Bowman, Jeffrey.......................................... 33
Freeman, P. Michael...................................... 45
Grijalva, Ruben.......................................... 65
Jarman, Tracy............................................ 34
Morris, Tony............................................. 16
Prather, Chip............................................ 54
Roberts, Ron............................................. 72
Ward, Nancy, Region IX Administrator, FEMA; and Mark Rey,
Undersecretary for National Resources and the Environment,
U.S. Department of Agriculture............................. 95
Rey, Mark................................................ 110
Ward, Nancy.............................................. 95
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Freeman, P. Michael, fire chief, Los Angeles County Fire
Department, prepared statement of.......................... 47
Grijalva, Ruben, director, Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, prepared statement of.......................... 67
Jarman, Tracy, fire chief, city of San Diego Fire-Rescue
Department, prepared statement of.......................... 36
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio:
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Prepared statement of Mr. Zev Yaroslavsky, LA County
supervisor............................................. 42
Morris, Tony, founder and researcher, Wildlife Research
Network, prepared statement of............................. 18
Prather, Chip, fire chief, Orange County Fire Authority,
prepared statement of...................................... 56
Rey, Mark, Undersecretary for National Resources and the
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement of............................................... 112
Roberts, Ron, chairman, Board of Supervisors, County of San
Diego, prepared statement of............................... 74
Ward, Nancy, Region IX Administrator, FEMA, prepared
statement of............................................... 97
WHAT THE OCTOBER WILDFIRES REVEALED ABOUT PREPAREDNESS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
----------
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Fallbrook, CA.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the
Board Meeting Room at the Fallbrook Public Utilities District
in Fallbrook, CA, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Kucinich, Issa, and Bilbray.
Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Noura
Erakat, counsel; and Jean Gosa, clerk.
Mr. Kucinich. Good morning and welcome. The Domestic Policy
Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
will come to order.
Welcome to Congressman Issa, at whose request this hearing
is being held. Congressman Issa, thank you. We are joined by
Congressman Bilbray, also from the area, who has been similarly
interested in this, and I want to thank Mr. Bilbray for joining
us today as well, and without objection, Members will have 5
days to be able to submit any additional testimony for the
record.
On October 21st, a wildfire began in Witch Creek, a rural
area in the foothills of San Diego. That same day, Governor
Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency. President George
Bush issued a major disaster declaration for the State of
California and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and
local response efforts.
At the height of the disaster, 23 fires were burning. By
the time all the fires were contained, 517,267 acres of land
had been burned, 2,233 homes were destroyed and 10 people lost
their lives.
The damage caused by the 2007 Southern California wildfires
could have been much worse, if it were not for the capable
response efforts of local, State and Federal emergency
responders.
The absence of additional fires in San Diego, surrounding
counties, and in Northern California, also helped make the
story of Southern California's wildfires a success. Everyone,
from local, State and Federal officials, to media outlets, has
described the response to the wildfires as a wonderful success,
and the emergency responders and the intergovernmental
coordination that managed firefighting resources were performed
competently, effectively, and professionally.
But if the October experience is to be a window on to the
extent of California's preparation for future wildfires, then
we have to consider how those same fire responders and
intergovernmental coordination managers would have fared if
they had been confronted with a different fire, or a number of
simultaneous fires in several different counties. How much of
October's success can be attributed to adequate training,
management and resources, and how much of it was a function of
luck, that California did not have other fires to contend with
at the same time?
The fires that burned throughout Orange, Los Angeles, and
San Diego counties are certainly not the last to impact
Southern California. Southern California has historically
endured major fires. It did so in 1970, 1977, 1980, 1985, 1987,
1993, 2003, and now, in 2007.
However, not only have major fires historically been less
frequent than they have been recently, but they've also been
less severe. Both the 2003 Cedar fire and the 2007 Southern
California wildfires have been described as ``100 year'' fires.
Unfortunately, future trends indicate that such disasters are
on the rise.
According to the Wildfire Research Network, the frequency
or voracity of wildfires will increase in the near future due
to global warming, increasing wildland-urban interface and
aging vegetation.
According to the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, 10 trends constitute the ``Wildfire Frequency and
Intensity Loop,'' including a rise in global warming and a
growing population in the wildfire-urban interface.
Is Southern California adequately prepared for these major
fires? Disaster preparedness involves several considerations
such as prevention measures, public education and preexisting
agreements. Most importantly, however, disaster preparedness
means having the proper resources and having enough of them.
In California, resources are owned by local responders,
bolstered by State resources as well as mutual aid agreements
within the State, and supplemented by Federal fire and
emergency agencies. Different counties have vastly differing
levels of local response capability.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department possesses a total of
13 firefighting aircraft during fire season. Orange County Fire
Department possesses two aircraft. San Diego County has two
helicopters. The county of San Diego spent nearly $130 million
to enhance its wildfire prevention, preparation and
responsibilities. These improvements included purchasing two
wildfire helicopters, improving its emergency communication
system, removing 417,000 dead, dying and diseased trees, and
implementing a Reverse 911 system.
All of these resources were mobilized to deal with the
October fires.
Additionally, the State of California contributed its 13
National Guard helicopters and 23 air tankers. Yet all of these
resources were not enough on their own. California tapped into
the Emergency Management Agency Compact, the EMAC system, and
obtained assistance from Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina,
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon.
The Federal Government also supplemented local and State
resources. The U.S. Forest Service, of the Department of
Agriculture, has approximately 10,000 firefighters, three to
400 fire engines, 30 to 40 helicopters, 8 fixed air tankers
that it made available to California during its battle with the
2007 fires.
It took everything the counties, and State of California
could muster, and more from the Federal Government, to contain
and extinguish the October fires. Our witnesses have told us,
again and again, that had there been any fires in Northern
California, as there were in 2003, that some of the resources
used to fight the October fires would not have been available.
Imagine. Had there been only four additional fires in
Northern California, there would not have been sufficient
resources to respond to all of them. Southern California was
indeed lucky, lucky because no other fires burned in California
during those last few days of October. But what if Southern
California is not so lucky the next time, when in four to 5
years, another ``100 year'' fire ignites and consumes Southern
California, and this time, five fires also burn in the Oakland
Hills? Then it might matter that San Diego County is the only
county in California without a fire department.
Instead, the county has a total of 65 volunteer-based and
paid fire agencies. In 2004, 81 percent of voters in San Diego
County approved Proposition C, which queried support for a
consolidated system and was to be funded with reprioritized
revenues, but no new revenues.
Due to its lack of a county fire department, San Diego
County is dependent on San Diego's city fire and rescue
department as well as its neighboring counties with well-
resourced fire departments.
Today we will hear from several witnesses, on our first
panel, as to whether or not this arrangement is sustainable.
The next time there's a ``100 year'' fire, how will the Modular
Airborne Firefighting System [MAFFS], help? The MAFF system was
not put to use during the recent wildfires because the Forest
Service refurbished tags were not ready for the California
National Guard's new J model C-130 aircraft.
According to the Fire and Aviation Management, the fully
equipped JC-130's will be ready in May or June 2008. The next
time, will a new agreement correct for California Fire's
failure to utilize Marine helicopters? According to Cal Fire,
they have addressed this problem by entering into a short-term
agreement with the Marines in the direct aftermath of the
fires.
More recently, Cal Fire and the Marines continued their
discussions on a long-term operating plan.
Our job today is to ask our witnesses what more could be
done, and will be operable in Southern California, to ensure
that any future response is as successful as it fortunately was
in October 2007.
Thank you, and at this point, I want to turn to the ranking
member of this committee, Mr. Issa of California, who has been
a partner in all matters relating to this committee. He and I
work cooperatively. I am glad to be here today, Darrell, and to
work with you on this, and I know the district is very
appreciative of the efforts that you continue to make. So,
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this hearing has
been somewhat characterized as my ``Christmas present'' from
the committee, and I actually believe it is. I realize your
time is taxed very heavily, and you could be almost anywhere,
and I am glad that you are here and looking into a matter in
which the Federal, State and local resources were so recently
taxed to the absolute limit, and as you said in your opening
remarks, quite rightfully so, this is a situation in which we
were lucky.
We did a better job than we did in the Cedar fire in 2003,
but it's very clear, we also got lucky.
In today's hearing, I am very hopeful that as we look--in
my history since 1977, I was lucky enough to arrive as a 2nd
lieutenant, in time for the Los Padres fire, where I was
stationed at Fort Hunter-Liggett, in the middle of that fire,
which burned for more than a month.
I learned then, with bulldozers, and my Engineer Co., that
in fact we don't put out fires. We, in fact, let them burn. The
reality, in California, is that we produce countless millions
of tons of flammable material every year. Sooner or later,
either we will burn it, we will cut it, or God will burn it.
Our fires have a tendency to be a mixture of we have cut a
little bit, on occasions we burned a little bit, and
unfortunately, between arsonists and lightning and other
natural events, we guarantee that we will see fires that we
have to, in fact, control while the fuel is burned again.
As a Federal officer, I am keenly aware that often, we have
been the problem to clearing, prior to a spontaneous event. I
hope that we can, in the future, on a bipartisan basis, realize
that habitat is preserved by small burns and destroyed by
hundreds of thousands of acres burning at once. That is the
lesson that the environmentalists, and, in fact, the men and
women before us today have learned the hard way, that in an
effort to not burn, to save wildlife, we ultimately often lose
far more wildlife and, of course, the lives of men and women
fighting the fire, and our citizens.
I believe that we are going to be stuck between two
realities here today that are not Federal.
One, should we, in San Diego County, spend $100 million to
purchase and equip additional fire capability, and $40 million
a year, every year, to meet somebody's idea of a minimum
tasking level?
Or would those resources, and others, be more effectively
placed into--and I say this with some trepidation--a surge
capability for not just San Diego County but for all the
counties of California and the West? That is probably the
biggest challenge we have.
Earlier, our senior senator, Senator Feinstein, held a
hearing, and the hearing seemed to get very much tied up into
the idea that if San Diego would just spend a couple a $100
million here and a couple a $100 million there, we would not
have had the damage we had.
I think it is very clear, and I think our testimony will
support, that we would have had these fires, hundreds of
thousands of acres would have burned, whether or not we had
another $40 million of firefighting capability on an annual
basis.
As a San Dieagan, I am keenly aware that when a home
catches fire in San Diego County, or any of the other ordinary
and routine emergencies that fire departments handle, we handle
them extremely well. We are right-sized for those kinds of
events.
When you have 80 mile-an-hour winds, 90- or 100-degree
temperatures, and you have, not one, but sometimes dozens of
fires catching, either through man's efforts, or through
natural efforts at one time, is when we clearly do not have the
resources.
Hopefully today, as we explore resources that expand far
beyond those that you would routinely have sitting there in
case a cat gets caught in a tree, euphemistically speaking, we
begin to realize that C-130J's, DC-10's, helicopters are very
expensive, but they are force multipliers. We need to have a
plan throughout the West, to make sure that we spend the money
wisely, to give us that surge capability, and if at all
possible, find ways to have those resources properly used for
other activities during the period in which we are not in a
fire.
Much has been said in San Diego County about the conflict
between Marine aircraft that were available and the inability
to utilize them in a timely fashion. I hope today we can put to
rest the fact that this was a 99 percent perfectly fought fire,
and a 100 percent textbook-compliant fire. No rules were
broken. In fact, the availability of those helicopters and the
scrambling to make those helicopters available, was, in fact, a
new page in firefighting in San Diego County.
I hope all of us will remember that we did not expect these
assets to be available. When they were made available through
the efforts of both the Marine commander and Cal Fire, we were
able to put them to work in a couple of days.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't like to anticipate those kind
of opportunistic resources in the future, so that they can be
put to work faster, but I don't believe that this hearing
should dwell on a delay of a day or two in what was in fact a
small portion of the resources that ultimately fought this
fire, but, rather, look at the best way for the Federal
Government to cooperate with State and local resources, to
bring to bear the kind of effective firefighting, whether it
occurs just in San Diego or in 10 spots throughout the West on
the same day.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, once again, our friendship. I
appreciate of course that you are my brother's Congressman, and
he never lets me forget that. He does vote for you.
Mr. Kucinich. That is why I am here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Issa. Every vote counts. But I appreciate you giving us
an opportunity to explore this more fully. Nothing could be
more important to the people in the West, than that we get this
right on a Federal, State and local level, and I thank you and
yield back.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Congressman Issa.
The Chair recognizes another distinguished member of our
subcommittee, if he wishes to make a statement.
Congressman Bilbray and I have similar experience in local
government as well as on a Federal level, and I think that
having that experience on both levels is very useful to looking
at local concerns and seeing where the Federal Government might
be able to be of more assistance.
So Congressman Bilbray, thank you very much for your
presence here, attendance this morning, and we look forward to
your comments.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I always
have to sort of chuckle, realize, was it 1978 that you and I,
and one other ``young Turk'' mayor was----
Mr. Issa Are you Turkish?
Mr. Bilbray. We were young mayors then. Now we are just
worn out Congressmen. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kucinich. I don't want to say speak for yourself but--
[laughter.]
Mr. Issa. He is just ``hitting his stride.``
Mr. Bilbray. You know, let me just say that I think that
Congressman Issa said it very well. Frankly, I come from a
background, and like you said, Mr. Chairman, of the local
government level, and there are too many of us in Washington
that sit back and have never really had to have our ``hand on
the helm,'' and don't realize the huge gap between the
theoretical approach, the way things ought to work, and how
they actually work out.
And I see this hearing as being a debriefing on what, on
its face, kind of really jumps out, that it was a success, but
with any success there are always ways we can learn and do it
better.
I think that one of the big advantages that I would like to
have this hearing do is take the message back to Washington
with the Chair, that there are some real things to learn, both
problems and successes here, that the rest of America ought to
learn.
A good example is the fact that this county, under the
State system, has the advantage of having a unified disaster
response structure, where fire chiefs, police chiefs, mayors,
county supervisors, are all part of the team, and so they are
used to communicating when there isn't a crisis, so that it
works a little better when there is.
We still have to improve on that, and I think that is one
of those things of coordinating the State and Federal agency
into that local team, that has shown how well it can work in
the past.
I think the Reverse 911 is one that the rest of the country
ought to be really looking more seriously at. I talk to people
about, in the Midwest, about how did this happen? how were you
able to basically evacuate the population of New Orleans? And
using technology, learning from the Cedar fire, and applying
it, and building on what we learn there, is something that the
rest of the country ought to look at. I do worry about the
misconceptions that go over there.
A lot of these problems are caused by the interface between
wildlands and urban development. What I worry about is that
there are gross assumptions being made there, that the only
place you have problems is where homes have been built, back in
the back country.
Well, first of all, Julian has been there for a 100 years.
It is probably one of the most threatened wildlands. At the
same time, San Diego County, Mr. Chairman, the county and the
cities have done something that I think the rest of the country
would love to have done more of, and that is actually bring its
wild lands into its urban interface.
In my district, the greatest threat was those open space
areas that we have set aside and preserved for habitat, and for
open space recreational activity, end up being a threat during
this wildlands, that it literally can go right into
neighborhoods that have been there for a 100 years, and the
ability to--these canyons, these open habitat areas then become
a tinderbox for these threats.
So these are obviously challenges that we have, and
sometimes we are victims of our own success. I think that one
of the things that we talked about with Mr. Markey's committee,
as we will talk about greenhouse, the wildfires' impact on
greenhouse gases, is that every study shows that controlled
burns can be better for the environment, overwhelmingly, if we
can be proactive about it, and I think there is a challenge
there, as Congressman Issa said, at Congress recognizing that
there is a place for the Federal Government to be proactive,
and not only allowing, but encouraging the kind of activity
that, traditionally, we have blocked and had obstructions in.
I mean, our system basically allows a Federal bureaucrat to
hold everything in abeyance, for years, just because you have
to get his signature or her signature. I think now the burden
of proof needs to be pushed forward, that we want our agents in
Fish and Wildlife to sit there and say what can we do to
prevent these problems, so we can save habitat from major
catastrophes such as a wildfire.
And let me just say that anybody that looks at the
statistics on what has happened--Ron, how long ago was Cedar?
Four years. We are talking about conditions, Mr. Chairman, that
were twice as severe as 4 years ago, and we have kept the
damage down, almost to where it was equal, that the conditions
were absolutely horrendous, but because of the things we have
learned, and built on from the past, we were able to minimize
the impact.
At the same time, with that success pointed out, we need to
recognize that we need to do the same thing that we did 4 years
ago, and that is reevaluate, relearn and go back and say, What
can we do better? How can we improve it, so the next time this
comes down, we can again have it again, down the line, I think
that is the success here, and so, you know, as a former
chairman of the local disaster council, I am very excited to be
here, to be able to see how we have built from our successes,
where the glitches were, where there were failures in the
system, and build a stronger system for the next fire that
comes along, that will be able to protect the people of San
Diego County. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Congressman Bilbray.
As I mentioned earlier, without objection, the Chair and
ranking member had the time to make the opening statements, and
that Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to
submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the
record.
Now I also want to ask those of you--I am mindful of the
fact that we have a room of emergency responders, but if you
have a cell phone, if you could keep it on a vibrate function,
it will be easier to conduct this hearing.
So I think that is the only statements we are going to have
from Members at this point.
If there are no additional opening statements, the
subcommittee is going to receive testimony from the witnesses
before us today.
I am going to introduce our first panel.
Tony Morris. Mr. Morris is a freelance journalist and
founder of the Wildfire Research Network. The Wildfire Research
Network's goal is to improve wildfire suppression capability
and to provide wildfire research findings to the public and
government.
Mr. Morris will represent the WRN, and recently served on
Governor Schwarzenegger's blue ribbon panel on fire protection.
This panel helped secure the purchase of new firefighting
supertankers and other technologies to help the State suppress
fires more effectively.
Mr. Jeffrey Bowman served as chief of the San Diego Fire
Department from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Bowman has been in the
firefighting profession since 1973, and was chief of the
Anaheim Fire Department until 2002.
Ms. Tracy Jarman is chief of the San Diego Fire-Rescue
Department. Chief Jarman has worked for the San Diego Fire
Department since 1984.
Mr. Michael Freeman. Mr. Michael Freeman is the fire chief
for the Los Angeles County Fire Department. As fire chief for
the last 18 years, he has led the fire department through many
large-scale emergencies, including the 1993 Malibu fire and the
2003 fires.
Chief Freeman will also be reading the testimony of who
could not be with us today but whose testimony we will enter
into the record.
Mr. Chip Prather is the fire chief of the Orange County
Fire Authority. In 2003, Mr. Prather served on California's
blue ribbon fire commission.
Mr. Ruben Grijalva is the director of the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and is the State
fire marshall for California.
Mr. Ron Roberts is chairman of the San Diego Board of
Supervisors and is currently serving his fourth term in this
position. Mr. Roberts served on the San Diego City Council for
7 years prior to becoming a supervisor.
So I want to thank each and every one of the witnesses for
appearing before this subcommittee today.
To the witnesses, it is the policy of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all witnesses
before they testify. I would ask that if all of you would
please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Now I ask each of the witnesses to give a brief summary of
your testimony and to keep this summary under 5 minutes in
duration.
I want you to bear in mind that your complete written
statement will be included in the hearing record.
So Mr. Morris, let's begin with you and then we'll proceed
down the line. Thanks again for being here and you may
continue.
STATEMENTS OF TONY MORRIS, FOUNDER AND RESEARCHER, WILDLIFE
RESEARCH NETWORK; JEFFREY BOWMAN, FORMER FIRE CHIEF, CITY OF
SAN DIEGO FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT; TRACY JARMAN, FIRE CHIEF,
CITY OF SAN DIEGO FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT; P. MICHAEL FREEMAN,
FIRE CHIEF, LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIP PRATHER,
FIRE CHIEF, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY; RUBEN GRIJALVA,
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION; AND RON
ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATEMENT OF TONY MORRIS
Mr. Morris. Chairman Kucinich, ranking member, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. Again, I am Tony Morris of Wildlife Research
Network, WRN, a Los Angeles-based citizen nonprofit public
safety research organization, created 7 years ago to improve
wildfire suppression capability throughout California and the
United States.
Current statistics show we have lost more than 8,500 homes
and structures in California wildfires in the first 7 decades
of this decade. This is significantly more than the 6,500 lost
in the preceding 30 years.
Trends like these cannot be allowed to continue. WRN has
been conducting a serious search to answer the perennial
questions. No. 1, why does this happen? and two, what can be
done about it?
During the California Governor's blue ribbon fire
commission hearings, following the 2003 Southern California
wildfire siege, experienced firefighters said they were hearing
essentially the same comments and recommendations they had
heard 10 and 20 years ago in similar hearings.
WRN now, sadly, must report the 58 recommendations of the
2003 blue ribbon commission have met the same fate--very little
progress. However, acknowledging the 19 pursued by the U.S.
Forest Service. These observations indicate the wildfire
fighting systems have not been working well for over 30 years.
No really significant changes are being made.
When the wind blows hard, lots of houses burn down. We
believe firefighters have been doing their best with what they
have, but when strong winds come, the system breaks down. The
issues are not with the firefighters but with the equipment and
other resources provided to them.
WRN addresses these in three categories. Technical,
financial and administrative. Technical challenges are, No. 1,
fires are not attacked soon enough with effective resources.
Two, current air tankers do not carry enough suppressant to
attack the heads of big fires.
Three, airborne firefighting assets do not fight fires at
night. Four, current firefighting systems have limited
effectiveness and high winds. And five, the fire services do
not have the viable research and development program to resolve
the preceding four technical challenges.
None of these technical challenges will be resolved,
however, until someone is willing to spend the money. This
leads to the financial challenges. Wildfire fighting costs have
been cyclical, widely spaced high-cost years with many modest
cost years in between. This has led to budgeting concepts of
general funds and emergency funds.
General funds cover moderate year expenses, and emergency
funds are only tapped or spike high-cost years. The general
funds do not include any significant funding for modernization
or resolution of spike year problems.
The spending profile for major big spike fires starts out
low because all fires start out small, and only immediately
available adjacent initial attack forces are involved. But as
the fire overwhelms the ability of the initial attack forces,
fire size rapidly expands and much larger forces are called
from ever-more-distant assets. Suppression costs build
accordingly, and generally exceed general funding available.
If adequate initial attack capability is provided, the
large emergency fund requirements do not materialize.
The moral is more money must be made available to
significantly improve the effectiveness of the initial attacks,
and the missing research and development programs to identify
the best way to spend this money.
This is the only way to reduce spike emergency costs. These
financial changes will not be implemented without support from
administrative arms of the financing governments. Local and
State governments have limited taxing ability to raise general
fund allocations. Many changes needed to improve initial attack
capabilities involve complex and/or large capacity new
equipment in significant numbers, that generally require
technical expertise beyond that normally found in the local
fire services.
Existing Federal fire services are in no better position to
deal with these issues than local agencies, because
organizationally, they also have limited geographical authority
and exist as subsets of three cabinet-level agencies, with
prime responsibilities other than wildfire fighting.
WRN believe a new cabinet-level agency with prime
responsibility for resolving the technical and financial
challenges of the wildfire fighting services should be created
to adequately collect, organize and present their needs with a
single voice and provide information for effective oversight
and accountability.
I would like to ask the chairman's permission to invite Mr.
Bob Cavage, he is the president of WNR, he is an expert in
aeronautical engineering, and he is present to answer any
questions you might have on the technical side. Mr. Cavage is
in the audience. If that is possible.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Morris, and to the gentleman, that will
be fine if we need to involve him in the Q&A, we will ask him
to come forward and we will swear him in.
Mr. Morris. OK.
Mr. Kucinich. So thank you for your attendance as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Bowman, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BOWMAN
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, I agree with
most of what Mr. Morris has had to say. I have sat through so
many of these after-action processes where a lot of
verbalization takes place, and within 6 months, very little to
any change is made.
I certainly believe, and I will address comments this
morning at the Federal, State and local level, but I certainly
believe firefighting and its responsibilities truly are a local
government responsibility. The State plays a role in that as
does the Federal Government, but it predominantly is, and
should be, a local government responsibility.
Some local governments perform that responsibility better
than others. As the former fire chief in San Diego, I will talk
briefly about my beliefs of the local government responsibility
in just a moment. Before I do that, I would like to say a thank
you on behalf of the citizens of California to the Federal
Government for the assistance that you have provided to this
region.
The monetary input that has gone into brush and fuel
managements and vegetation policies in California, have gone a
long way to help toward the fire prevention side of what has
happened here, in California, in the last 10 years,
specifically since the Cedar fires.
I would also say that many of the nice changes that you
have mentioned this morning, and the technology improvements
that have happened in Southern California since the Cedar fire,
were actually funded by the Federal Government. They didn't
come from local funding.
You mentioned the Reverse 911. Yes, it worked well. That
was funded by you, thank you for that, through Homeland
Security grant funding.
My comment, then is that the Federal Government I believe
is doing a much better job of helping out local and State
resources when it comes to this important public safety
subject.
On the State level, it was mentioned by Mr. Morris, I sat
in my kitchen, 4 years ago, when Governor Davis called me and
asked me what we could do about the wildfire impacts in
California, and several of the people on this panel and I had
already spoken about what to do next, and out of that
conversation came the blue ribbon commission, on which I sat,
as did some others here in the room today.
My point is that we went through months of researching what
took place and what needed to change, and some of the most
basic recommendations have yet to be done.
One I will mention is the State of California has the
Office of Emergency Services where they provide fire apparatus
to local governments in times of emergency. The recommendation
out of the blue ribbon commission was to purchase 150 fire
engines. To date, since 2003, 19 have been purchased, not one
has been received by the State government. I believe that is a
focus that needs to have a tremendous amount of effort put on,
so that we don't come together at the end of the next wildfire
and have this same conversation again.
Military asset and aircraft were talked about, Congressman.
I just have to tell you that another recommendation out of the
blue ribbon commission was that two State agencies and one
Federal agency would come together every year, no later than
July, with a written statement of how we, as the fire service,
were going to utilize local and Federal military assets to help
fight wildfires.
And if the recommendation had simply been followed, it is
my opinion that this wildfire siege would have happened much
more effectively, without any of the confusion or the red tape.
I just hope that between now and next year, that
recommendation is enacted, so that by July 2008 a written
report of status takes place. At the local level, Congressman,
I understand your concern about funding.
Too many people misunderstand that $40 million. That wasn't
to fight a wildfire. That was to manage, day to day, in San
Diego, and I will let my esteemed colleague to my left remind
you that is something that needs to be focused on here,
locally, at San Diego.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
Chief.
STATEMENT OF TRACY JARMAN
Chief Jarman. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this hearing this morning.
I am frustrated, that every time there is a major firestorm
that comes through the San Diego region, San Diego city finds
itself alone, on our own, for the first 24 to 48 hours to fight
the firestorm.
Let's be clear. These fires start out in East County and
blow into the city of San Diego. This was the case in 2003 at
the Cedar fire and the case again in 2007 Witch Creek fire. I
need to set the record straight. Well in advance of both the
Cedar and Witch fires reaching the city limits, the city fire
and rescue department had requested additional firefighting
resource assistance. In both cases, we were told there were
none available.
At this last fire, I requested a 100 additional engines,
600 additional firefighters, including hand crews, and we were
told none were available.
However, at the same time, we are expected to often send
out engine strike teams to assist other fire agency requests
within the county of San Diego. It is unfortunate, but looking
to the future, I think we will need to consider the commitment
of the firefighting resources to other areas.
I don't say this lightly, but you must understand, my
primary responsibility is to provide the highest level of fire
protection services possible for the citizens and visitors to
the city of San Diego. That being said, and based on recent
history, I may need every available city firefighting resource
here, within the city, to fulfill that responsibility.
You need to be aware that historically, the county of San
Diego has, and still lacks, the firefighting resources
necessary to protect its residents and visitors during
significant firestorms.
In a previous hearing, the blame or burden seemed to be
placed primarily on the city of San Diego to solve this
regional issue. Specifically, the immediate availability of
additional fire suppression resources. This is a much larger
regional issue. Solving this issue is the responsibility of the
county, the State, and potentially, the Federal Government.
Sure, I can build 22 more fire stations within the city
that will help us on our day to day responses, but those fire
stations and personnel are not going to make a substantial
difference when a Santa Ana firestorm blows into our city.
Twenty-two additional fires stations would provide five
additional strike teams, not nearly the firefighting assistance
I need when I am requesting a 100 additional engines, like I
did during the Witch Creek fire.
During the recent Malibu fire, dubbed the Corral fire, I
was told that there were 45 strike teams available to suppress
this 4,000 acre blaze. I realized I had a total of 10 San Diego
fire and rescue strike teams in Rancho Bernardo for a 9,000
acre fire. This was more than twice the size of the Corral
fire, with a quarter of the resources to fight it.
I am exceptionally proud of the job our firefighters did in
saving nearly 6,000 homes. It is also important to note that
there were neither lives lost nor any major injuries to
firefighters or citizens within the city of San Diego.
I need to reiterate that we, the San Diego Fire and Rescue
Department, were there in force when the fires burned into the
San Pasqual Valley and Rancho Bernardo communities. Our
firefighters fought the fire aggressively and never gave up.
At the peak of the fire, we deployed 480 San Diego city
firefighters. That was more than half of my department, was on
the fire line. The community knows this as do our firefighters.
We welcome being part of the regional solution. Although we
are by far the largest firefighting in the county, the city of
San Diego Fire and Rescue Department should, by no means, be
considered a silver bullet with a responsibility to provide the
majority of the additional firefighting services needed in this
county.
I acknowledge the greatly improved cooperation between
Federal, State and local fire agencies. This is a vast
improvement over our experience during the 2003 Cedar fire but
we still have a long way to go. As a city, we are not going to
get there alone, nor should there be an expectation that the
city should shoulder the entire burden. It is not fair to the
city or its citizens.
Other fire agencies and local government jurisdictions need
to step up and share the responsibility of helping resolve the
regional issues.
I want to thank you for this opportunity. I recognize that
County Board of Supervisor Ron Roberts and Bill Horn have
stepped forward with a proposal and we appreciate an
opportunity to be a part of that ongoing solution. So thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jarman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Chief. I want you to
know that, as all the witnesses should be informed, that your
entire statement will be put in the record of this hearing, as,
without objection, will be the testimony of Los Angeles County
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yaroslavsky follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. At this time we will hear from Chief Freeman.
Chief, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
Chief Freeman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for being here. I represent the Los Angeles County
Fire Department which provides fire suppression and life safety
services to a 2,296 square mile area within the 4,400 square
mile county of Los Angeles. More than 4 million residents and
58 cities, and all unincorporated areas are protected.
Each year, we provide fire code enforcement, planning for
high-risk wild land areas, and respond to more than 900
reported brush fires.
During the Southern California firestorms of October 2007,
we coordinated and sustained wild land firefighting operations,
combatting four large complex firestorms, some occurring
concurrently, and also to deal with several other fires within
our county. All of these were fanned by gusty Santa Ana winds.
As soon as upper hand, in even a small way, was gained,
additional personnel from Los Angeles County, 45 engine
companies, dozers, crews, helicopters, were sent to other areas
still in peril.
In total, 35 homes were lost during October in Los Angeles
County. What we believe made a big difference for us was first,
preplanning, equipment purchases and contracts which gave us
many resources needed to mount considerable air and ground
attacks. Our department focus on preplanning enabled us to
better meet the needs of these simultaneous incidents.
At the core of predeployment planning is focus on
operational readiness, so that firefighters have the right
training and equipment to fight these fires when they do occur.
Another important component is the staffing of three highly
trained and organized incident management teams, ready in the
event of a major incident.
Daily, we monitor local weather conditions, initiate
increased fire suppression staffing and equipment levels,
including additional helicopters, prepositioning fire engine
companies prior to the arrival of predicted Santa Ana winds.
When the California mutual aid system is operated, it is
obviously essential, and it is critically so, to our ability to
respond to and contend with large-scale wild land fires.
Mutual aid, however, takes time to activate and during fire
sieges in which multiple incidents are underway, waiting for
resources to come from long distances, or being released from
one incident and assigned to another can be challenging.
During the height of the battle in October, 127 of 232
total fire engines in Los Angeles County, were engaged in
firefighting at these major incidents. Over 1,800 firefighters
from Los Angeles County worked around the clock on these
wildfires. Nine firefighting helicopters, including three
Sikorsky Fire Hawks, which belonged to the county, with 1,000
gallon water-dropping capacity, flew day and night.
Three contract aircraft, two 1,600-gallon capacity
SuperScooper airplanes, and a 2,200-gallon capacity Helitanker
helicopter aided our firefighters.
Firefighting staffing also included 32 15-member fire hand
crews, 8 bulldozers, 13 dozer tenders, 37 fire patrols, and
staffing of 80 reserve fire engines.
Despite all of our preplanning and predeployment measures,
the mutual aid system still played a major role in our ability
to respond and contain these fires, saving hundreds of homes
each time. During these wind-driven events, no fire department
can stand on its own.
Our philosophy is that a strong mutual aid system does not
relieve a locality of its responsibility to assess
jurisdictional threats and prepare for them.
We have invested in more resources of our own, whether
through direct acquisition or creation of seasonal lease
agreements, so that additional resources are readily available
to attack wildfires quickly, and keep them small, if possible.
We recognize this following the devastating 1993 firestorms
in Malibu and Altadena when hundreds of homes were taken. We
have four recommendations. We submit those in our testimony. We
emphasize, once again, that the State work to increase the
surge capacity, that is, additional engine companies through
the acquisition of more fire engines.
These companies could be staffed by local fire departments.
A Federal-State partnership to establish and identify
funding for predeployment costs and mutual aid response.
A Federal fleet of air assets used by the Federal
Government needs to be upgraded.
Federal-State sponsorship to fast track applied technology
to create a real-time GPS-based mapping system for incident
commanders to use in managing these major wildfires.
Again, thank you for your time and being here with us this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Chief, and I know that
everyone's time is very valuable, and we are going to keep
moving through the hearing. Please let Mr. Yaroslavsky know
that we appreciate him submitting that written testimony and
that testimony is going to be in the record of this hearing as
though he were here to present it.
Chief Prather.
STATEMENT OF CHIP PRATHER
Chief Prather. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity and for your leadership on this
very important and very real issue.
I too have submitted a comprehensive statement addressing
the scope of your questions that were provided in the
invitation.
The key points in that document, which do acknowledge that
the outcome of this conflagration is better than that which
resulted from the 2003 firestorms, are centered on two things.
The assumption that the number of deaths and burned-out
neighborhoods at this time, no matter how much better than the
2003 conflagration, is not acceptable for our community.
And second, that the path to achieving a better outcome,
while hard to bring about, while hard to bring about, is pretty
easy to identify and understand.
Specifically, achieving a better outcome requires risk
based land management. In other words, we must deal with the
fuel-loading in the areas adjacent to the wildland urban
interface, and we must have zoning requirements that
acknowledge a community fire risk, along with a set of building
and fire codes that are truth-tested in a wildland-urban
interface.
In California, a new set of building and fire codes will
become effective over the next 6 months, which do just that for
new construction.
However, as Congressman Bilbray pointed out, the larger
risk is those preexisting nonconforming structures in the
hundreds, if not thousands of neighborhoods, that were built
before the modern codes were enacted, or the many communities
that adopted local code amendments to address the historical
fire risk in those neighborhoods came about.
The second part of the solution in my opinion, is to have
an engaged community that is motivated to take the necessary
steps to harden our homes and create defensible space, and for
us in the fire service to have the tools available to enforce
that compliance when those residents are not motivated to do
so.
And last, as you have heard, and as you have also stated,
there must be a robust initial attack firefighting force on the
ground and in the air to keep the fire small.
And when those conflagrations that will continue to occur
in Southern California do happen, there must be the surge
capacity of local, State and Federal assets, to quickly provide
additional air and ground assets to stand between the people
who are at risk and the advancing fire.
The brush fire risk in Orange County, much like that of the
jurisdictions which my colleagues protect, happened in minutes,
not hours, not days. I don't know what is fact or what is
fiction when it comes to the resource issues of the air and
ground asset problems with this most recent conflagration. But
I do know this.
If we expect to change the future, we must have additional
air and ground assets quicker, and there must be more of them,
and as I say, they absolutely must address the prevention and
compliance issues at the same time.
Bringing about those changes will require strong leadership
at the highest levels, accountability to ensure steady
progress, and the money necessary to support that effort.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that this committee will
provide some of that leadership and I thank you for taking what
I hope is a first step in bringing about a different future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prather follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Chief, thank you very much. I have had a
chance to review your testimony and it is quite comprehensive,
and I think that it will be very helpful to the work of this
committee. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Ruben Grijalva. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF RUBEN GRIJALVA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Kucinich,
Congressman Issa, Congressman Bilbray. Thank you for inviting
me to speak with you today, and as the chief of Cal Fire, let
me begin by saying that saving lives is our first priority in
the fire service. All firefighters know that.
Emergency disaster response is a highly coordinated skill
that takes years of experience, cooperation among many
entities, and millions of dollars in place. It works better in
California than anywhere else in the world.
During the October firestorm, the actions performed by
emergency responders resulted in dramatic improvements over the
2003 fires. The State was prepared like never before. Cal Fire,
the U.S. Forest Service, and local government, predeployed
additional engines, aircraft, and personnel to Southern
California in advance of the fires because we knew the
potential risk from the weather conditions that were presented.
This level of predeployment did not occur at this same
level in 2003. Fire/weather personnel predicted the Santa Ana
winds to be a moderate event. However, the weather began the
perfect storm of high temperatures, low humidity, high wind
speeds, and at times reaching hurricane speeds in some areas.
During the October fires, we mobilized more and different
equipment faster than we did in 2003. In fact, in a 2-day
timeframe, we mobilized more than we did in a 6-day timeframe
in the 2003 siege.
There were over 15,000 firefighters on the ground, and in
the air, fighting fires in Southern California.
Through various mutual aid agreements, we received
assistance from a number of States, probably over 30 States,
ultimately. We also received assistance from every military
branch, on the ground with bulldozer assets, in the air with
helicopters, and also in gathering real-time intelligence
information in the middle of a firestorm.
In total, there was approximately 1,145 different fire
agencies fighting these wildfires.
Let me mention, that in addition to the 23 large fires that
occurred in six counties in Southern California, an additional
251 fires were extinguished by the fire service personnel,
without damage, between October 20th and the 25th.
No one can deny that the collective response and
performance of the emergency personnel in October was anything
less than extraordinary.
They managed the most orderly mass evacuation in the
State's history. Authorities estimate more than a half a
million people were evacuated from the path of the fires. Lives
and homes were saved by emergency personnel who risked their
own lives over and over again. Despite worse conditions faced
this year, the 2003 fires resulted in hundreds of more homes
destroyed and more lives lost than in 2007.
Fires are won and fought on the ground. Aircraft is
certainly an important tool, but planes and helicopters are not
effective without firefighters, engines, water tenders,
bulldozers, and assisted by an evacuation plan and properly
managed shelter.
I can tell you, in particular, on the Witch fire, that our
air tankers dropped on that fire, within 2 minutes of that
fire's origination, again in 5 minutes, and then again 7
minutes later. That is three air tankers dropping 1,200 gallons
of retardant each. Without support from resources on the
ground, the fires blew right past it and was not contained by
air attack.
There's been a lot of focus on the air coverage, the use of
and limited use of, for these fires. But focusing solely on the
asset minimizes the primary role of firefighters on the ground
and their successful efforts.
I will submit the rest of my testimony for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Grijalva. We are now
going to hear from Chairman Roberts.
Mr. Roberts.
STATEMENT OF RON ROBERTS
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me officially
thank you for being here today. And I also want to thank both
Congressman Issa and Congressman Bilbray. You should know that
unlike many elected officials who have been here, these two
Congressmen were here during the fire, they were working hard,
not when the cameras were rolling, but off camera, to
understand what was going on, and to help to contribute to
solutions, and they, along with Congressman Hunter, I just want
to acknowledge and to thank them.
We have just experienced some of the worst firestorms in
California history, and I refer to this as a ``perfect
firestorm'' in that the high winds, low humidity and dry brush,
all contributed to the disastrous mixture. It has already been
noted how many homes. We lost over, approximately 1,700 homes.
The majority of these were in the unincorporated areas of the
county. They weren't in cities. They were in the unincorporated
areas, and tragically, there were 10 people who lost their
lives.
Today, we are moving forward, the debris is being removed,
and we are seeking to get back to a situation of normalcy,
whatever that might be.
These fires, just like the fires that swept through here in
2003, will teach us a great deal. In fact, they already have.
There are some things, however, that we already know. We know,
for example, that the evacuation of more than a half a million
people in San Diego County, while not perfect, worked very
smoothly.
And we also know that the timely deployment and use of
military aircraft did not, for a variety of reasons.
Since 2003, as you noted, we have invested nearly $130
million to enhance our ability to combat, prepare for, and
respond to wildfires. In addition to a number of things that we
have done to remove diseased or dying trees, over 400,000, the
county did implement a Reverse 911 system, and just before the
firefighters were put in place, a much more technologically
advanced mass notification system.
That system is capable of notifying not just on landlines,
but using cell phones and e-mail systems to notify people that
they need to consider evacuation. More than consider. Sometimes
it is mandatory.
The county of San Diego also holds a strong belief that
land use and zoning ordinances are extremely important in
minimizing the loss of life and property. Our codes and our
ordinances are among the most advanced in this State.
But you need to also understand the local geography. It has
a canyon system that runs right into the heart of this entire
county, in fact, very close-in to downtown San Diego.
While evacuations are a preferred method of protecting
lives, we have also developed a shelter-in-place program. In
fact some of our newer communities have a shelter in place, and
clearly designed evacuation routes. And by the way, the five
new communities that have shelter in place, there were no homes
lost in those areas. So perhaps this is something that needs to
be looked at, in detail.
We also require defensible spaces around both our large and
our small subdivisions, and in some instances, these defensible
spaces exceed 200 feet in width.
It is, however, difficult, if not impossible, to go back
and retrofit our older communities. But in addition to the
zoning ordinances, our building codes are among the strictest
in this State, and I understand there will be new building
codes soon required by the State, but we require, first of all,
noncombustible or fire-resistant exterior materials, dual-
glazed windows and fire sprinklers in all new construction.
These are just a few of the things that have been done.
OK. I will do that. Can I make----
Mr. Kucinich. If you would go ahead and wrap it up.
Mr. Roberts. Yes. I will. I think there are some things you
need to be aware of and I will just mention a few. There are
things that maybe need to be considered by the Federal
Government.
The Bureau of Land Management, for instance, only operates
its fire departments here five, not 7 days a week, and a cost-
cutting move has reduced the number of days that most stations
are open. You can be of help to us, and I think both the
Congressmen are working on systems that would allow us to fight
fires the way that a modern war is being fought, and that is
usually, and especially the systems that are available, that
could help us with earlier detection of fires, and then the
surveillance and the information that we need in the management
of that firefighting process.
There were systems that were available to us late in this
fire, that really were of no consequence in helping us where
the fire was after most of the damage had been done.
We need to be able to bring those things on line earlier.
These are Federal assets and I know that both of the
Congressmen are very familiar with Global Hawk and other
things. There is no reason why these are used in hurricanes but
not in fires. So we would like to see that perhaps in
reconsideration of the way some of the Federal equipment is
being used, and also looking ahead to things that we will need
to do with Federal assistance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. We are now
going to move to questions of the witnesses. We are going to
move to questions of the witnesses. I would ask the witnesses
to engage in this exchange and let's try to get right to the
point.
I want to start with Mr. Bowman. You spoke of a blue ribbon
commission and past recommendations which have not been
followed. Does any recommendation come to mind, that you think
would be helpful if it was followed at this point?
Mr. Bowman. Do I need a microphone?
Mr. Kucinich. I think it would be helpful if you had it.
Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. I mentioned two of them. The purchase
of the OES fire engines is probably the least expensive, most
effective change that can happen, because those units, once
they are purchased, are spread throughout the State in an area
where you can have the surge capacity that was mentioned by
some of the other speakers. They are not staffed until a
wildfire or a disaster occurs.
So you don't have the day to day staffing. You have
immediate resources available to augment local government's
response to these kinds of incidents.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
Chief Jarman, how often are you asked to assist cities
surrounding San Diego, such as East County?
Chief Jarman. Oh, we assist on a daily basis through the
mutual aid system.
Mr. Kucinich. And does providing that assistance strain
your own resources?
Chief Jarman. Well, the part that is mutual, we try to
support each other. The surrounding cities oftentimes do help
us, in return, if we are overtaxed. In a firestorm situation,
typically, we go out and help the surrounding communities in
order to prevent the fire from progressing, because eventually
it ends up in the city of San Diego.
Mr. Kucinich. So do you have any recommendations as far as
easing the city of San Diego's burden as far as its resources?
Chief Jarman. Well, I think our county is underresourced as
a whole. I think the city of San Diego, for day to day
operations, needs to build like 20 plus fire stations. But I
believe the surrounding agencies also need to step up the
amount of resources that are available in the county.
Looking at our regional county fire department, with an
adequate, sustainable funding source would benefit the citizens
of San Diego. It would improve our efficiency. It would drop
the boundaries and allow us to respond better and support all
the region.
Mr. Kucinich. Now you had mentioned you have a quarter of
the resources to fight a fire that was significantly larger
than the Corral fire. Whose responsibility is it to bolster the
resources you have available?
Chief Jarman. I believe it is on the local, State and
county governments to ensure that there is enough resources to
protect the citizens during--it is challenging. We talked about
surge capacity. When a firestorm like that, with 50 additional
reserve apparatus, all the agencies within San Diego County
could staff the reserve apparatus. We have off-duty crews that
are available.
Mr. Kucinich. So would having a county fire department
improve fire preparedness and response?
Chief Jarman. Yes. I believe that a regional, a county fire
department, with a adequate sustainable funding source, would
improve emergency response.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Morris, Governor Schwarzenegger as well as Cal Fire
contend, that even if they had sent a dozen more aircraft into
Southern California during the first 24 hours of the wildfires,
that would have been useless in light of the ferocity of the
Santa Ana winds. Do you agree?
Mr. Morris. Not necessarily. There are only certain--excuse
me. Let me--could I please swear in Mr. Cavage? He's a
technical expert, our planning expert.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Do you want to first state your name,
please.
Mr. Cavage. It is Robert Cavage.
Mr. Kucinich. Can you spell that for the record.
Mr. Cavage. C-a-v like in Victor, -a-g-e.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Let the record show that the witness has
answered in the affirmative.
I would ask staff if you would provide the gentleman with a
chair.
I am going to ask the question again for the record.
Governor Schwarzenegger as well as Cal Fire contend that
even if they had a dozen more aircraft sent to Southern
California during the first 24 hours of wildfires, they would
have been useless in light of the ferocity of the Santa Ana
winds.
What is your opinion on that, sir?
Mr. Cavage. The whole issue is what was the wind speed at
the time. If it is over 35 miles per hour, all of your air
assets, except a few fixed wing, SuperScoopers, and some
helicopters, everybody else gets sent home.
So I don't care if you had 10 times as many airplanes that
we have now. When the wind gets up to that speed, safety says
you don't send them, you don't send them. Now that doesn't mean
those aircraft cannot be used at other times. The fire isn't
over 35 miles per hour all the time.
So there is a period of time when it is true, the air
forces were not available and they may be useful. But there is
a buildup period and it depends on when the ignition occurs.
Like in the Cedar fire, we had 12 hours notice before the
winds hit the homes, and yet nothing happened because the
airplanes couldn't fly at night.
So there are technological changes that need to be made to
make those aircraft effective as possible. The military has
been doing this for decades. There is no reason why that
technology can't be transferred to the civil fleet.
Mr. Kucinich. So just to clarify before I turn the
questioning over to my colleague, Mr. Issa, at what point, at
what wind speed are you saying the aircraft is less effective?
Mr. Cavage. The number that is typically used as a rule of
thumb is 35 miles per hour. However, there are adjustments.
Some aircraft, some helicopters----
Mr. Kucinich. What about the Witch Creek fire? What was the
wind speed there?
Mr. Cavage. I am sorry. I don't know that. The people on
the ground----
Mr. Kucinich. Does anyone here know the answer to that
question, what the wind speed was at the Witch Creek fire?
Anyone?
Mr. Grijalva, do you know what the----
Mr. Cavage. It was 68?
Mr. Grijalva. I think we're technically challenged on that.
Mr. Kucinich. If you could just say, you know, I will
repeat the answer.
Mr. Grijalva. It varied from time to time. I actually have
two pilots here with me that flew the Witch Fire, who can give
you accurate information of what they saw while they were in
the air. But they actually went up, came down, went up,. They
were also looking at the wind changes throughout the fire, and,
you know, they are here in the audience, if you want to swear
them in.
Mr. Kucinich. Sure.
Mr. Grijalva. They actually flew the fire.
Mr. Kucinich. Sure. I mean, without objection, if we could
have another minute for my questioning on here.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I think the testimony was
showing the maximums were up to 45 to 85, but, you know, that
would be a fluctuation as the chief was saying.
Mr. Kucinich. I just think it is important for us to
establish this, you know, certain assertions are being made,
and I just want to make sure the record is clear on this.
OK. If the gentleman would just----
Mr. Grijalva. Can I introduce them.
Mr. Kucinich. And the gentlewoman--come forward.
Mr. Grijalva. This is Billy Hoskins who is a----
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Hoskins.
Mr. Grijalva. Bill Hoskins who is one of our air tanker
pilots, and Lynn McGrew----
Mr. Kucinich. So would you--I just want to get the names
here. Mr.--is it Billy or William?
Mr. Hoskins. Billy.
Mr. Kucinich. Hoskins. H-o-s-k-i-n-s?
Mr. Hoskins. That is correct.
Mr. Kucinich. And?
Ms. McGrew. Lynn McGrew. L-y-n-n M-c-G-r-e-w.
Mr. Kucinich. And you are both pilots?
Ms. McGrew. We are both based out of Ramona.
Mr. Kucinich. Could you raise your right hand, both of you.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Kucinich. Let the record show the witnesses answered in
the affirmative.
I just would like you to speak to the question of what the
winds were at that time, and to speak to the question of the
effectiveness of firefighting. At what point is it diminished
from the air? At what wind speed?
Mr. Hoskins. Yes, sir. I can't be specific about the wind
speeds because it varied so greatly. But at the beginning of
the Witch fire, two or three three pilots that initially
attacked it--that's us--did exactly what Mr. Grijalva said. We
worked on the fire. I think we had eight drops on it before it
completely, you know, escaped us. And as he said, without
ground forces immediately there, that is what was going to
happen to this fire. The 35-mile-an-hour figure is a rule of
thumb and you should consider ceasing fighting fire aerially.
At that point is not required that we do that.
Mr. Kucinich. Is there technology that would give
firefighters a greater lead?
Mr. Hoskins. We fight fire now, at considerably higher
speeds than that now. You have to choose your drops more--with
that in consideration. You don't drop crosswise with the wind
because it is going to blow it way downrange. If you can drop
on the flanks of the fire, you can still do it at relatively
high speed.
Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank you. I want to go to Mr. Issa
now. I took about 10 minutes there, so you can do the same.
Mr. Issa. No problem, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully we will have
a second round at this time.
Mr. Kucinich. We will. I want to thank Mr. Hoskins. Thank
you.
Mr. Issa. Billy, before you go----
Mr. Hoskins. Yes, sir?
Mr. Issa. I will start with you since you don't have a
chair. You are a contractor out of Ramona?
Mr. Hoskins. That is correct. All of the current air tanker
pilots are contracted to the State of California. We work for
DynCorp at this present time.
Mr. Issa. Right. And the aircraft that you brought to bear
on a surge basis out of Ramona?
Mr. Hoskins. The Turbine S-2. That is what was operating
out of Ramona at the time.
Mr. Issa. OK. I just wanted to make sure that the chairman
had this, because that is a factor in California, is that some
of our surge is absolutely contractors at their own expenses,
that they don't hope for fires but they are there when we need
them, over and above primary government resources.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Before you go, Billy, you don't fight fires at
night under the current rules?
Mr. Hoskins. No. In my opinion, that technology is a long,
long way off. We are dealing with terrain that is so abrupt,
that it is even very difficult for helicopters to fly it at
night.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that. The reason I ask is, almost
without fail, our winds drop off at night, don't they?
Mr. Hoskins. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. So in a sense, if the Federal Government, which
does not know how to fight and fly at night, were to, as a
result of this hearing, bring about that technology in time,
you would be gaining the time in which winds are least of a
problem and in fact, you know, by definition, the best time to
fight a fire is when the winds are low, the winds are low at
night. Is that fair? Forgetting about how long it might take us
to develop that capability and field it.
Mr. Hoskins. I will have to agree with that.
Mr. Issa. OK; thank you. You know, it is one of the big
questions for us to take back to Washington. So thank you for
being part of that.
Mr. Grijalva. Can I clear up one thing for the record?
Mr. Issa. Sure.
Mr. Grijalva. Billy is an exclusive contractor with Cal
Fire. He is not one of the private ``call when needed''
contractors.
Mr. Issa. I understand. But he does have another day--he
does have another life between fires.
Mr. Grijalva. No; no. They fly Cal Fire.
Mr. Issa. Oh. I apologize.
Mr. Bilbray. Only if he plays golf.
Mr. Grijalva. They fly Cal Fire aircraft. They are on
exclusive contract with Cal Fire.
Mr. Issa. OK. Thank you. I still view them as part of the--
you know, they are part of our surge capability, if you will,
because that is all that they do is make themselves available
for that.
Mr. Roberts. Congressman.
Mr. Issa. Yes, Ron?
Mr. Roberts. And maybe you need to direct that question to
Chief Jarman. But the city of San Diego's helicopters fly at
night and does fight fires at night, but they are not permitted
to fight the fires that are under State control during the
night.
Mr. Issa. Chief, that may be a good one for you to
followup. When you have a city-only fire, do you fly at night?
Chief Jarman. Yes, we do. Copter one was up flying the
first 24 hours and flew through the night. That is typically
what we do. It is the difference between a helicopter and a
fixed-wing aircraft. So that helicopters can fly at night and
we proved that during the Witch fire.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I will take that back with us too.
Chief, while I am on you, though, you know, we talked about the
codes in San Diego, and for that matter, California.
Isn't it fair to say that homes are dramatically safer for
fire purposes today than they were at any time in the past? In
other words, progressively, we have been getting rid of shake
roofs, boxing in eaves, in a sense, eliminating what used to
make homes fire traps, at least in new construction and major
retrofits?
Chief Jarman. I would say that is true in new construction.
Our challenge are the older homes that are along the edge of
the canyons, to focus on boxing in those eaves, changing the
attic vents so the screens are tight enough. I think there is a
lot of progress we could make there.
Mr. Issa. So from a standpoint of residential fires not
related to brushfires and wildfires, your job, in a sense, has
become better in the last 100 years, that firefighting as we
used to know it, when homes burned down, and Congressman
Kucinich and I are both Clevelanders, so we go back to oil and
all kinds of other heating systems that California hardly knew.
But the fact is homes burn on a per population basis, less
today than ever have in the past, and that has been a downward
trend, hasn't it?
Chief Jarman. I would say for the most part, it has been a
downward trend, but last year we actually saw about a 20
percent increase in residential fires, a change that we are
looking into and researching to find out what the cause is.
But typically, over the past 100 years, yes, it has
reduced. We have made a lot of progress.
Mr. Issa. And doesn't it give you a challenge in that your
day to day base load for firefighting is actually lower than it
was at any previous time? The amount of firefighters necessary
to do the job is, on a per population basis, is inherently a
dropping figure, while a wildfire isn't going to drop. That
surge isn't going to drop a bit?
Chief Jarman. Well, given the number of high-rises that the
city of San Diego, the region has experienced, I think it is
still a challenge for us, as firefighters, to have the
personnel available, whether it is a high-rise or a firestorm.
You still need the capacity in order to deal with the----
Mr. Issa. Are high-rises a greater fire threat per capita?
Chief Jarman. Than wildfires? No. I would say the wildfires
are a greater threat per capita based on the fact that the
high-rises are typically sprinklered.
Mr. Issa. OK. You know, because from a Federal standpoint,
we have no basis to participate, nor is it appropriate for us
to comment on whether you need 20 stations to take care of the
cat in the tree, the heart attack, or, in fact, regular fires
that occur on a basis. We do have a role to play in these
Federal disasters, and that's hopefully one of our challenges.
Chairman Roberts, you mentioned the canyon structure.
Presently, the canyons in San Diego County are in fact a
habitat-run area. In other words, we are not allowed to break
the habitat capability for endangered species purposes.
So you have to have a non-broken, for purposes of
migrations of various species, you have to have a non-broken
canyon, as a result, substantially, a non-broken fire corridor;
isn't that true?
Mr. Roberts. Well, I think that is largely the goal, is to
provide for movement of wildlife between the various systems.
Mr. Issa. And a good fire break is also a good break in
habitat migration, isn't it?
Mr. Roberts. There are times when the two come in conflict
with one other; but not in all cases.
Mr. Issa. OK. Does the county of San Diego have requests
that would help alleviate the fire risk while maintaining some
semblance of habitat and endangered species conservation, that
have not been answered by the Federal Government? In other
words, are there things you would like to do that we haven't
let you do?
Mr. Roberts. Well, I think there are instances where there
are conflicts between environmental goals and safety goals, and
I mentioned the possibility and difficulty of retrofitting,
especially our older communities. In the newer communities, and
communities that we are planning for tomorrow, we do extensive
fire studies as part of the planning and then decide what that
clear zone needs to be along with the other protections that
need to be built into those communities.
But it is very difficult, and in some cases it is very
counter to environmental issues in the older areas.
Mr. Issa. OK. That is a good one to know.
Chief Jarman, going back to you for a moment, and because
we don't have a BLM representative--to be honest, this isn't a
fed panel--isn't it true that the lands you are speaking of--
and I won't take East County per se--but outside of the
incorporated area of San Diego, isn't it true that they are
disproportionately the open areas, Federal and State parks,
Indian reservations, BLM land, and the like, and aren't those
the areas of greatest shortcoming in firefighting?
Chief Jarman. I would say that is a true statement.
Mr. Issa. So would it be fair for this committee to take
back that meeting our requirement on Federal lands, including
Indian reservations, such as the La Jolla reservation that was
so devastated, and, in fact, that is a very poor tribe that
does not have the possible resources, that us reevaluating what
it takes to ``step up to the plate'' to meet those
requirements, which are outside the county's direct
responsibility, is a take-away?
Chief Jarman. I believe it is. We should probably look at
the fuel loads in those areas, prescribe fire management
programs, something along those effects within our region.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that. In your experience,
firefighting at night is something that you believe is
essential in San Diego, and you would again take away that we
should make this a priority for Federal firefighters?
Chief Jarman. Yes, I do. The interesting thing about a
firestorm is the challenge. It seems that between 2 a.m. and 6
a.m., the winds do pick up. It is different than what we
typically see on a typical afternoon where the winds are from
one to five and then they shift. So that is a difference that
we experience during these firestorms.
Mr. Issa. I know there is going to be more questions than
there is time, but just one thing in your experience. The
tendency toward low water consumption in and around homes. For
the most part, isn't low water consumption and, in a sense, a
dichotomy with trying to stop fires?
We can't grade hillsides there because they will erode.
Even the various other types of plants that are fairly low,
they have a tendency to be low in water consumption and easily
burned, unless you want to have red apple on every single
hillside in California.
Chief Jarman. That is true. There was one structure that
was surrounded by aloe plants, and actually, they believe that
might have helped slow the fire down. So it is something that
we have looked to the experts for recommendations along what
should the citizens be planting.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Congressman Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Grijalva, the locals have said that they
can fly helicopters at night but can't fly over the State-
controlled lands. Is that true?
Mr. Grijalva. Well, right now the--I don't know if it's
working or not--right now, the Fire Scope board of directors is
looking at night flying as a policy and has recently released
new standards for night flying.
We at Cal Fire are also looking at that, although we do not
do it right now, at least for helicopters for the future.
So as long as they are keeping within the criteria
established by Fire Scope, that they could fly at night. But
they are not controlled--we are not up in the air at night, so
our air traffic control managers are not up there at nighttime.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, this is one of those things we need to
work out. If the city of San Diego has the capability of
putting a ``bird'' in the air that could respond, don't you
think that we should be looking at making sure that we have the
control system ready to where we could use a resource, if it is
available right now?
I mean, in other words, it just seems logical that if a
resource is out there, we don't want to end up with another
situation where we ran it again, where the State didn't plan on
this, or didn't have the capability to tap into certain
resources that you would want.
My question again is, if the fire is held--next year--will
we be able--will you be able to call the city of San Diego and
say, look, do you have a unit that can fly? She says yes. Do
you have the ability to use that unit?
Mr. Grijalva. Well, the way it works in Southern California
is with the majority of the counties, they are contract
counties with the State. So, for example, LA County is a
contract county with the State. They have their air resources,
they fly at night, and they could fly over SRA at night under
their control system. So in San Diego, we don't have that down
there. So there is parts of the State where that can be done.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Then we should be talking about what it
would take to get the protocols and get the relationships to
use that, and I think that is----
Mr. Grijalva. We are doing that through the regional
organization called Fire Scope, looking at it on a statewide
basis.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. I understand the statewide basis. I hope
that we are able to work with the local disaster council, to
make sure that the system, you know, the degree of urgency that
we have for the next, you know, seven, 8 months, that we have
``got our act together,'' so we don't have to be, respond in
that.
Mr. Bowman, when you talk about fire suppression being a
local responsibility, and being a former mayor and county
supervisor I understand the constitutional issues here.
Aren't you really, though, saying that it is the local
property owner, traditionally, has been the one response?
A good example is if the police--if you have a vacant lot
that is overgrown, the city of the county normally goes in, or
the fire district normally goes in and tells that property
owner you have a responsibility to maintain that property or
you have a responsibility for fire suppression.
Is it more fair to say that it is the local property owner,
the people owning the property in the location that bear the
real responsibility for fire suppression?
Mr. Bowman. No. They clearly have a responsibility to
maintain a fire-safe property.
Mr. Bilbray. Right.
Mr. Bowman. The local government also has a responsibility
to oversee that. My comment, however, was directed at local
government funding for fire protection.
If you look at a couple of counties represented here today,
Los Angeles is one and Orange County is another, I would find
it prudent that you ask how much money those counties spend on
fire protection. There is a city fire chief here and we have
talked about city local funding for fire protection.
To me, this region, San Diego County, is well behind Orange
and Los Angeles, and virtually every other county in the State
of California. That was the purpose of my point.
Mr. Bilbray. Chief, what percentage of your county is owned
by Federal and State?
Chief Freeman. I'm not sure I could give you the percentage
but it is a relatively small amount.
Mr. Bilbray. Small amount.
Chief.
Chief Prather. Same. Relatively small.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, for the record, 51 percent of San Diego
County is owned by the Feds and the State, and I will tell you
something. If I was a mayor, and somebody, a property owner
owned half of my city, basically felt that they did not have an
obligation to participate with the other half, I would say you
are damn wrong.
And I think that when the State and the Feds want the right
to own all this property in San Diego County, then just as we
say to the private sector and to the private owner, and to the
city and the county, you have a responsibility to bear your
proportional responsibilities there, you darn well, we have a
right to say to the Federal Government--and this is a big
difference, Mr. Chairman, in your county as opposed to this.
I mean, you can imagine, you probably get 5, 10 percent of
your county owned by the Feds and the State back East.
Mr. Kucinich. Depends on how fast the subprime hits.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bilbray. Right.
Mr. Kucinich. Not funny.
Mr. Bilbray. But I think the real issue here is
proportional responsibility and that is where we do bear more
responsibility in San Diego County because we have more rights
in San Diego County than we do in either one of your counties.
Global Hawk is a good example of the real-time response.
Somebody was talking about real-time response here. That the
Federal Government has a capability there, that we can get a
bird up, get the information to you, so you can see exactly
what is going on, and this is a capability that we should be
able to be talking about from the Federal Government's point of
view.
It is that real-time response is going to be really
critical. I want to say that again. I think there is
proportional rights with this issue but there is proportionally
responsibility, and the big difference between us and other
counties in California, especially the urban counties, is we
are one of the few, if not the only urban county that has the
majority of our jurisdiction controlled by Federal and State
agencies.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray. We are
going to one more round on this panel.
Picking up on the question that you asked, Mr. Bilbray, and
the numbers that you cited about 51 percent of the land being
owned by the State and the Federal Government in San Diego
County, I would like to start with LA County Chief Freeman.
How much do you spend annually on fire protection?
Chief Freeman. About $800 million a year.
Mr. Kucinich. And what about Orange County, Chief Prather?
How much money do you spend annually on fire protection?
Chief Prather. Approximately $260 million.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. San Diego County, Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Roberts. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Kucinich. According to staff, the answer is $8 million.
Now if that in fact is the case, I think the comparison here is
instructive, even with the fact that you have 51 percent of the
land owned by the State and Federal Government.
I want to, at this point, ask Mr. Freeman, in your
testimony you write that a strong mutual aid system does not
relieve the locality of its responsibility to assess
jurisdictional threats and prepare for them.
Do you feel that Orange County and San Diego County are
living up to their responsibility of preparing for
jurisdictional threats, and if not, what do you recommend they
do to prepare themselves?
Chief Freeman. I think that my comment applies, in general,
as a concept. I am not an expert, by any means, on either of
those counties.
Mr. Kucinich. Well, your opinion. Would having a county
fire department improve fire preparedness and response, and has
there been a case for Los Angeles?
Chief Freeman. Well, sir, I am not sure that the structure,
in my opinion, is what is key. I think what is key is what are
the threats and what are the needed assets, resources, and
capabilities to address those threats, and then whatever
structure is determined by the local authorities, and if it is
a partnership between local, State and Federal, then that
structure should be decided by them.
Mr. Kucinich. What about this structure, Chief Jarman, with
respect to the county fire department and its role in this?
Mr. Bilbray. I believe a county--a county fire department?
It would minimize the potential for duplication of services. It
could provide for more efficient and effective use of the fire
resources and management. It would enable the equitable
distribution of fire resources throughout the region. It would
provide for dedicated full-time resources that would be
available to address the needs throughout the county.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Grijalva, Riverside contracts with Cal Fire for a fire
department. How is that different with your arrangement, from
your arrangement with San Diego County, and would contracting
with the county help you increase your resources?
Mr. Grijalva. In Riverside County, the way it works is a
lot of cities contract with the county for fire protection and
then the county contracts with the State for fire protection.
So throughout most of Riverside County, city, county and State
fire department is the same. That is one model that I think
works extremely well in the State.
I think the LA County model also works extremely well, i
which many cities contract with LA County and the State then
contracts with the county to cover State responsibility area.
Those are two different models, they both work well, but
they both work well because both counties invest a significant
amount of money in fire protection.
I think those are, from my perspective, looking at a
statewide perspective, two counties that are models.
I think Ventura County, Orange County, do an outstanding
job in terms of prevention. So while they may not have the same
investment and resources as some of the other counties, they
have a significant amount of investment in fire protection and
they do an outstanding job in prevention, which helps minimize
the need for suppression resources.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Grijalva. Now a
final question to Mr. Roberts.
Chief Jarman mentions that if you ask for fire response
assistance in the future, that she wouldn't be able to help
because the city of San Diego is the first priority.
Is that characterized correctly?
Ms. Jarman. That is correct.
Mr. Kucinich. What will the surrounding counties do to
respond to their fires in that case, and what kind of
assistance can the county provide them?
Mr. Roberts. Well, I don't want to misconstrue the chief's
comments. We have a mutual aid agreement, and I don't think the
chief is talking about disbanding that, you know, local sense.
Maybe so.
Mr. Kucinich. Chief----
Mr. Roberts. I think you need to understand, though, you
know, the county model is different. We also don't have a Water
Department and we don't have a Trash Department. We don't have
a lot of things you might see with other counties. We have a
different model. And when you talk about spending, you are just
looking at a part of this. You are not looking at the total
picture.
There is a lot more spent on local fire prevention and
preparation, and response, than is coming from your staff. It
is done under special service areas where the funding goes into
a district. There is a different history here, and I am not
saying that this is perfect--and we are moving with some
consolidation--but if you walk away from this, thinking that
somehow a county fire department is going to take care of the
issue, then I think that your time will have not been well
spent. Very well spent.
Mr. Kucinich. Chief, do you want to respond, based on your
understanding of fighting fires and the sufficiency of one
county, based on its historical structure, versus where you are
at now in terms of the real challenges that you face in meeting
the firefighting needs?
Chief Jarman. The mutual aid, day to day, would still be
there. It is when the firestorms come through, that I would
have to consider how much can I lend to other cities, given the
limited resources we have.
Regionalization and consolidation, without adding
additional units, will not make any difference in the same
regional area. So it is one area where we are talking about the
surge capacity, the additional units, either the 150 from the
State or the 50 from the county. We have short-term goals,
which is, what can we do to be ready for next summer? Is it
possible to get 50 more engines within our county by next
summer? And then you have the long-range, which is regional
consolidation, where does it make sense to consolidate and
leverage our global resources?
Mr. Kucinich. And, again, you know, this hearing started
with the assumption, and with the testimony, that those
involved in fighting the 2007 wildfires did a very good job,
and especially compared with past efforts. The question today
is preparedness and looking at the resources that are available
and the allocation of them. And we have been proceeding in a
constructive way.
Mr. Bowman, do you have anything to say about that as the
former chief, in terms of preparedness and participation?
Mr. Bowman. Well, I think Chief Jarman made the comment. I
would just add to it that the city of San Diego, because it is
well-staffed, is the first agency that is called to send units
out of the city, and she was asked a question earlier, does
that have an impact on the city? It absolutely does. If she
can't restaff the vacant stations that exist because they were
sent to the outlying county areas, the city of San Diego, then,
is left ``holding the bag,'' to find out how they are going to
deploy units to fight that fire, once it comes into the city.
So she has a definite problem, and there is an impact to the
city residents when she sends her units to the outlying areas.
Mr. Kucinich. Does the county have any difficulty, then?
Does the county ever get stretched thin?
Mr. Bowman. The county of San Diego is stretched thin on
every event. What hasn't been said here is that in the 1970's,
this county opted out of providing fire protection, and thereby
created these 60-some volunteer agencies that protect the back
country, the East County that Tracy referred to.
Volunteer agencies do a great job, but they are volunteers
and they are not adequately staffed to handle any kind of a
major event. So the county cannot respond, in effect, the way
an Orange or a Los Angeles County could respond, with a fully
funded, adequately served, fire service agency.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowman. I want to,
at this point in the hearing, say it is uncommon for the kind
of cooperation that Mr. Issa and I have had throughout our time
serving as Chair and ranking member, but it is also uncommon to
have a chairman of one party, the majority party, pass the
gavel to the ranking member of the minority part. But in
recognition of our close working relationship, I am going to do
that right now. I am going to have to leave. But I want to
assure my good friend, Mr. Issa, by continuing cooperation--I
have some other questions that I will submit for the record and
engage our witnesses further.
But, again, Mr. Issa, thank you very much for this hearing,
and at this point I am going to be leaving. But at this point
you are now the Chair, so----
Mr. Bilbray. Don't say I didn't warn you on what he was up
to as soon as you leave the room, though.
Mr. Kucinich. I have complete trust in this man.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
holding this in the limited time you had available.
Mr. Kucinich. I am sorry. Before I leave, I just want to
make sure that I thank the Fallbrook Center here, and Fallbrook
Public Utilities District, for making this wonderful facility
available, and also for the members of the staff of the
majority and the minority, for their efforts in traveling here,
as well as participating in structuring this hearing. So
thanks.
Mr. Issa [presiding]. Thank you, Dennis, and it really is
unusual. Congressman Kucinich and I had the privilege of
working in opposite roles in the last Congress, and it was
bipartisan. It has been bipartisan on every one of our hearings
in Washington. It is kind of unusual but perhaps opposites
attract, and it works out perfectly for both of us. Plus,
again, I have to keep my brother happy.
Brian, you will now represent the loyal minority in the
rest of the hearing.
I want to followup on what Chairman Kucinich was getting
to, for a couple of reasons. I have had the privilege of
representing Orange County, Riverside, and San Diego Counties,
and Chief Prather, if I get it correctly, Orange County is
different than San Diego County in that substantially, you are
a county of cities. You are not a county, any longer, of
unincorporated areas, to any great extent.
Is that fair to say, for the record?
Chief Prather. We are sort of like what Chief Grijalva
described in Riverside. We have contracts with 22 of 34 cities,
and the unincorporated area, and governed under the JPA laws of
the State of California.
Mr. Issa. Right. But your decision to have a county
structure is a decision by your various cities. You know, I was
there when the last couple cities came in, and, you know,
basically, you are a county of cities. You are not a county of
large Federal and State and unincorporated areas. That is not
where most of the residents or most of the land is held.
Chief Prather. For the most part; yes.
Mr. Issa. OK. You know, when I contrast that to--and I
asked for a reason.
Chairman Roberts, if we were to take Encinitas, Carlsbad,
Vista, Oceanside, San Marcos, Escondido, El Cajon, National
City, you know, go through the incorporated areas, if we take
those out, the one thing I find interesting is all those cities
have no State or Federal land in them, to speak of. By
definition, Camp Pendleton is not in Oceanside, and so on.
Mr. Roberts. Well, Miramar, and many other bases are in----
Chief Prather. We didn't mention San Diego.
Mr. Issa. No. I am not counting San Diego.
Mr. Roberts. You are excluding the city of San Diego?
Mr. Issa. Right. So excluding the city of San Diego, and
excluding those other----
Mr. Cavage. Imperial Beach is the only one with major----
Mr. Issa. OK. But take all of those cities out, just take
those out because they are not part of the county structure,
currently. If you were to take the remaining lands, including
here, in Fallbrook, and put them under a county fire
department, how much of that would be Federal and State lands?
In other words, when you take out all of our cities,
instead of 51 percent, don't you end up with about 90 percent
would be Federal and State lands, and a relatively small amount
of the burnable area would actually be the homes and people of
the unincorporated county, and East County is probably the
exception. But certainly, in North County, you generally get
into Federal and State land, pretty quickly, when you get out
of the incorporated areas.
Mr. Roberts. Right. You actually do in the East County
also. But I don't know what that percent--I have no idea. It
would be a pretty high percentage. I suspect it would be
somewhat less than 90 but it would be a significant percentage.
Mr. Issa. OK. So rephrasing what I asked earlier, because I
think it is worth making sure it is in the record: If we were
to have the Federal Government and State agencies live up to
their obligation at the level that Chief Jarman lives up to in
the city of San Diego, wouldn't we be not having this
discussion we are having here today, about the county versus
the city?
Isn't the substantial portion that you have, better than
half of the geographic area of the county, is owned by the
Federal Government or the State government. They are generally,
you know, undeveloped, highly combustible, and untaxed. They
represent no revenue to the county, or to the city, and they,
in fact, are, for the most part, relatively sparsely protected
by firefighting organizations.
I look at the La Jolla Indians. They rely on BLM,
primarily, with some contract capability. Rincon has a
firefighting capability, that substantially is to take care of
their incorporated area within the tribal areas. Pechanga, the
same thing, and so on. Their fire departments are not nearly
sufficient to take care of, in some cases, tens of thousands of
acres.
Mr. Roberts. I lost the question. I am sorry.
Mr. Issa. The question is hasn't the record been made a
little bit unclear, in that if the county simply said, OK, we
are going to have a county fire department, what would you
really man, if the Federal and State are supposed to take care
of theirs? What would you really be manning, today, in the way
of--and Fallbrook is probably one of the exceptions.
Mr. Grijalva. Ramona and Chula.
Mr. Issa. Well, Ramona. But that is the whole question,
because I want to make sure that we don't misunderstand. You
are not Orange County and when we take out Federal and State
lands, and take out the incorporated cities, there isn't that
much left, is there?
Mr. Roberts. Well, there are some significant populated
areas, but I mean, your point is well made, and it really goes
to the comment that I made, that if you left here thinking that
a county fire department is automatically going to be a
solution to this--the city and the county have a good working
relationship.
In fact all of the cities in the county, in this region,
participate in the Unified Disaster Council, that in many
respects could be a model for a lot of the other areas. We have
some different circumstances in both geography, and
organization, and Federal and State ownership, and because, as
an example, perhaps a different way of doing things.
But, you know, with all due respect, the reason why the
city of San Diego has a helicopter is because a supervisor went
out, initially, and was able to get the money for that. Not
that they funded it on their own. In fact, it is an ongoing
supply of money to help them sustain that, both in corporate
giving, which a certain supervisor helped to put together, and
in a sustaining fund from what is called the Safe Port.
So there is a good working relationship. I don't want to do
anything to harm that. In fact, we are looking at how we can
most effectively bring resources, and, you know, among the
things we need to do a better job at is our brush management,
and other things that are virtually no cost, other than the
fact that you need to have your fire departments and your fire
marshalls going out and enforcing the rules.
And in neither the city of San Diego, or in the county, or
in any of the other cities, these efforts are at maximum right
now. So, you know, there are some things we need to do locally,
that I can assure you that we are going to be recommending and
moving forward on. The question of, you know, whether having
one fire department is a solution, or not, is not as clear to
me as it might be to some others.
Mr. Issa. Well, and I want to do one closing question. The
county maintains an Emergency Response Center. That is where we
met during the fire.
Mr. Roberts. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. That is not included in the $8 million that you
put into fires, but it was an asset brought to bear, wasn't it?
Mr. Roberts. There are a number of things. I told you, and
I suggested earlier--I shouldn't say I told you--and the
chairman, in fact, acknowledged, that we have spent $130
million over the last 4 years. It wouldn't take much of a
mathematician to figure that is in excess of $8 million a year.
Mr. Issa. OK. I am going to give everyone just a quick last
chance to followup with each of us, but I am going to put
something out here on the table, not just for the record, but
as a take-away for those of us going back to Washington.
If I understand correctly, separate from Federal and State
issues, if the Federal Government were to, one, evaluate the
ability to create safe zones through forms of clearing or forms
of modifications that would allow for better fire breaks, that
would be something that would be helpful in the case of this
and future fires.
The efforts that we have made to allow for constructive
clearing of dead lumber, dead trees, and so on, particularly
the pine infestation, is doing some good. We should continue to
support that.
The assets, such as Predator and Global Hawk, that were
brought to bear, with their ability to see through smoke, the
ability to see in an environment in which the naked eye may not
be good, and their ability to fly at night, is something that
we should be exploring, whether more of that could be brought
to bear as a resource on day one of a fire and other
emergencies.
The ability of all assets to be able to fly at night and
perhaps the Federal Government funding the ability for these
resources to be better able to do it.
I will say as to the C-130J's, you know, they are a State
asset, they will be in place in 2008. But they are a Federal
asset, we provide them and pay for them, and should be
embarrassed that it took so long to get the J model with an
effective FAA-approved retrofit for their suppressive
materials.
But that certainly is an example of an asset that we know
flies in above 35-mile-an-hour winds. And I am going to close
with just one question. We have technology in the military for
precision bombing, that can deal with incredible amounts of
wind and other activity.
Do you believe--this may be an aeronautical thing--that the
Federal Government also should be looking about whether we have
technologies that would automate the ability to drop in high-
wind situations, in difficult situations, better?
In other words, can we bring more technology to bear in the
fight against fire, when we have these high winds and a human
being is just frustrated by trying to drop in 40-, 50-, 60-
mile-an-hour winds.
I see a head shaking. Is that a yes, that we should take
that away? [Laughter.]
We should invest a little more in microphones the next time
we come down from Washington.
Mr. Roberts. In our written testimony we addressed that
subject, and, in fact, there are some things being worked out
with respect to suppression that it would be in direct response
to what you asked. It is underfunded. These people are just
hanging on by their fingernails. We have some illustrations in
the testimony as the concept that we think has that potential.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, can I followup.
Mr. Issa. Actually, we are going to let you close on this
one. Go ahead.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Following up on that, having spent some
time with the firefighters out there, the fact is it is high
altitude, usually vaporizes before it reaches the fire, and I
know they are working on this balloon application for portable,
so you don't have to use a tank. But it seems, as a layman,
that the capability of using the balloon concepts, to be able
to use high, so you don't have the vaporization, that basically
you have some kind of container, small containers that can
deliver the product onsite, from a higher altitude, where it
wouldn't vaporize, is there anybody working on that kind of
technology?
Mr. Cavage. You are right on target. Look in our submittal.
There are pictures of that concept, that they are already
beginning early stage development.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. I guess 35 years in Government, you
finally pick up something every once in a while. OK.
Mr. Cavage. Right now, you have a transport aircraft that
has a rear-loading ramp. You have an opportunity that you ought
to explore.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Anybody that has ever seen a water balloon
launcher hit somebody, you know how effective can be. But I
won't identify my children as being one of those people that
launch water balloons.
Mr. Issa. You Tube has already identified them, Brian.
Mr. Bilbray. I know. You know, Mr. Bowman, you were
pointing out the fact in the 1970's, the county abandoned the
efforts, and I think it is only fair that we all talk about
some base issues here that the chairman has to put up with.
We talk about the capabilities, being able to be online,
but we ignore too often--I would say this to the State
legislators--the fact is the money has to come from somewhere.
We have over 50 percent of the territory exempt from
assessment, and then, in the 1970's, Mr. Bowman, San Diego
County was locked into the lowest rate in the entire State, and
was punished because it hadn't been locked in to where--you
know, LA County, you can see how much a larger portion of the
``pie,'' of the property tax they are able to get because the
State was able to do that, and because they had aggressive
legislators who were willing to protect their ability to raise
revenue.
San Diego County has always been at that short end, at the
lowest level in the county. In fact, the only one that even
gets close I think is Orange County.
So where there is no money, there is not going to be the
capability of spending the money. And so I think that one of
the challenges we have to recognize is we are going to have to
try to build on that.
But we can't just throw money at this problem in San Diego
County cause the legislature, unless somebody enlightens them
to the fact that equal protect under the law means San Diegans
get equal protection with San Francisco, which gets twice the
percentage, we ought to be talking about the fact that we need
to be not just looking at being bigger. We need to talk about
being smarter, and we are forced to have to be smarter because
we don't have the resources down the line.
Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody here has to recognize
that we have our job to do. Mutual Aid has been great for San
Diego in extreme north and south, where you have the smaller
cities that can respond. city of San Diego, say, Coronado, back
in the late 1970's, when they didn't want to be part of mutual
response, and sure as shootin', the Landing Fire was the
biggest urban fire at that time, and kind of persuaded the
naysayers that participation was good.
I just have to go down the line and say, though, that, you
know, we all have our things. I think the chairman and I are
going to work at making sure real-time capabilities are there,
because it is fine to have the capabilities to drop it but if
you don't know where the fire is, in real-time, then it can't
be done. And that is our job and we will work on that.
The State of California, I think it is fair to say that we
ought to damn well make sure, before we get to the next fire
season, that we have worked out the way to be able to have our
resources in the air in San Diego, like we are in other States,
and I think our challenge there is to make sure that capability
works on that aspect.
The counties, the county chairmen, and the coordination
that needs to be done there, needs to continue to work with you
in making those bridges.
But I think the biggest thing here is that rather than
pointing out all the problems that we have had, which we have
had some big problems, we should leave here, not pointing
fingers, except understanding that we need to do our part to be
able to go on. Like I said, money alone is not going to solve
this, cause it is not going to be there.
We do need more resources, but we also need to be smarter,
and I hope we all walk away from this aware of that. Thank you
very much. I sure appreciate the chance, and it is kind a nice
to be able to sit down and talk to local government people who
actually do things, rather than the Feds that we always have to
work with, who do a lot of talking and not much action. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, and that certainly makes a case
against term limits, when you have 35 years of experience
speaking. I would like to thank our extended first panel.
With your indulgence, Members that were not here today,
upon reviewing the written record, may have questions.
Would you all agree to answer, in writing, if you are given
questions by committee members who couldn't come out to
California. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. And with that, the first panel is dismissed. We
will take about a 5-minute break before the second panel comes
up.
[Recess.]
Mr. Issa. I apologize. There wasn't time to change the name
tag to Chairman Issa. But I think we will get through this OK
without the promotion.
We now go to our second panel, and with your indulgence, if
the people from the third panel arrive in time, we are going to
consolidate, seeing as we are kind a consolidated here at the
dias.
Ms. Nancy Ward is the Region IX Administrator of FEMA. I
could do a longer bio, but that pretty well says it all. and
Mr. Mark Rey is the Undersecretary for National Resources and
the Environment for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Rey, we appreciate your being here. We had about 10
requests for different people from USDA, and they said you
could answer all the questions. So they ``threw you under the
bus,'' and hopefully, you will appreciate that the questions
may fall outside your ability to answer in real-time, and also,
Ms. Ward, that may happen to you, but we are a committee of
oversight that is perfectly happy to take things in writing,
for the record, and then act on them, because the complete
committee report will probably take as much as 30 days to
complete and put into an action plan.
So, with that, I would ask both the witnesses to rise and
raise their right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Issa. Let the record show that both witnesses answered
in the affirmative.
Ms. Ward, you probably heard earlier, that your entire
statement will be put in the record, so it is best if you
assume that you have said all of that, and now, for the next
five or so minutes, if you would use it as a basis to give us
that which may not have been within the federally authorized
proofed, vetted, and allowed-to-be-said record, and you have my
personal assurance, that if you go off your notes, there will
be no repercussions.
Administrator Ward. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. Please go ahead. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF NANCY WARD, REGION IX ADMINISTRATOR, FEMA; AND
MARK REY, UNDERSECRETARY FOR NATIONAL RESOURCES AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF NANCY WARD
Ms. Ward. Thank you, and it is a pleasure to be able to
participate today. As you know, I am the Regional Administrator
for FEMA Region IX, and so the firestorms in October were under
my responsibility as being in Southern California.
As you know, the 2005 hurricane season was a catalyst for
change and improvement with FEMA, and in my vast experience in
emergency management, I can tell you that the Federal
coordination for the California wildfires response has been
unprecedented in the level of collaboration and cooperation
between all of the partners, not only Federal, State, tribal,
local and voluntary organizations.
I personally, on the first day, went to the State
operations center to initiate joint operations. On Tuesday,
FEMA started holding video teleconferences with Federal
agencies, State agencies, and the president declared a major
disaster declaration and designated my call to the Federal
coordinating officer, who is also here with me today, and
within 24 hours an integrated joint field office was
established with Federal response teams from multi-agencies,
and many more other personnel on the way to assist.
To give you a brief scope of the Federal response, FEMA
staged more than 79,000 liters of water, 24,000 cots, 42,000
meals-ready-to-eat, and, in addition, provided 42,000 blankets
and other types of sheltering response items to support
sheltering efforts.
FEMA's Joint Field Office issued 92 mission Assignments,
totaling more than $40 million, for direct Federal assistance
from our partner Federal agencies in support of the State and
local governments.
And even as local and State firefighters were still
responding to the immediate fires, and they were not as yet
distinguished, key elements of Federal-State strategy for
recovery types of activities were initiated, and a housing task
force to support local governments in identifying short- and
long-term housing options for displaced residents. A debris
management task force, which we knew would be a huge issue, so
that we could thoroughly and timely remove the disaster-related
debris.
A multi-agency support group which was initiated to support
local government in addressing, in an environmentally sensitive
way, the future flooding and erosion and debris flow concerns
for the upcoming rainy season, and we have already seen some of
that actually play out.
And then finally, a tribal task force to help the affected
tribes to get technical assistance and supplemental assistance.
So I can tell you that firsthand, the wildfire response,
that FEMA has learned that we cannot wait for a State to become
overwhelmed prior to offering assistance, and by pressing
forward an engaged partnership with the State, FEMA ensures
that the resource gaps are filled and that the residents can
get the much-needed assistance more efficiently and
effectively.
This certainly helps with our mission to reduce the loss of
life and property, and I would like to thank you again for the
opportunity to participate.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ward follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Rey.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fire community,
perhaps uniquely, among government entities, values after-
action reviews, because new lessons can almost always be
learned, and result in improved performance, and shortly, I
will speak to a couple of areas of improved performance,
particularly with respect to the use, in Southern California,
of military reserve and active aircraft.
But results do speak for themselves. So I think it is
instructive to compare the 2003 fire siege with the one we just
experienced in 2007, because they provide benchmark years.
I will compare them for all seven Southern California
counties in 12 key areas. First, with regard to preparedness,
as my testimony indicates in detail, there was better
prepositioning of a larger number of assets in 2007 than was
the case in 2003.
The 2003 event was an event of 15 days of duration, whereas
the 2007 event was an 18 day event with sustained higher winds,
and drier fuels. In 2003, there were 213 ignitions. In 2007,
271 ignitions. Those resulted in large fires in 14 cases in
2003, and 20 cases in 2007.
That means that the initial attack success rate was
identical in both years, at 93 percent, with more fires and
more severe conditions in 2007.
In 2003, the event burned 750,000 acres. In 2007, 518,000
acres. In 2003, we lost 5,200 major structures. In 2007, only
3,050 major structures. There were 24 civilian fatalities and
one firefighter fatality in 2003. There were 10 civilian
fatalities and no firefighter fatalities in 2007.
In 2003, 237 firefighters were injured. In 2007, only 140.
In 2003, we evacuated upward of 300,000 people in the seven
counties. In 2007, we evacuated upwards of a million people in
the seven counties involved.
Since 2003, the Federal land managing agencies have treated
275,000 acres for fuel reduction purposes, with an investment
of $300 million. In my testimony or attached to my testimony,
you will see results of fuel treatment work that did save
communities and homes, particularly in the San Bernadino
incident.
Unfortunately, as a consequence of a court decision handed
down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 5th, the
rate of fuels treatment was slowed significantly.
The 9th Circuit reversed the Eastern District of
California, eliminating the use of categorical exclusions for
fuels treatment work, which will reduce the amount of fuels
treatment work that we can do by about 14 percent over what has
previously been accomplished.
In particular, some projects on the Cleveland National
Forest that helped save Mount Palomar, would now be not lawful
under the 9th Circuit decision.
Even though 13 is considered an unlikely number, let me add
a 13th factor for comparing 2003 and 2007. Since 2003, 180,000
new homes have been built in the wildland-urban interface in
these seven Southern California counties. That is right at 60
percent of the new home construction, regionwide.
So in 2007, there was a lot more to protect, and there
likely will continue to be.
Now in terms of areas of improvement, we do believe that
effectiveness could be improved by consummating the local
agreement between Cal Fire and the Marines for the use of
Marine helicopters.
We also believe that a stand-ready mechanism for the C-130H
MAFFS could expedite their call into duty, and as the testimony
has already indicated on the first panel, we are completing the
work of outfitting the C-130J series, so that they will be
available for the next fire season.
In every after-action review, two separate questions must
be asked. First, were there things that could have been done
better? The answer in this case, and almost always, is yes.
Second, were the things that weren't done as well as they might
have been, things that materially affected the outcome of the
incident?
In this case, in the case of the use of military aircraft,
there is no evidence to indicate that would be the case.
With that, I would be happy to submit the balance of my
testimony for the record, and respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Rey. But I do have some helpers here who I can call on,
if needed.
Mr. Issa. OK, and unless they require an in-depth
questioning, we will just assume that they will whisper in your
ear and you will then know all you need to know to tell us.
That is because of the limited microphone. I want to make
things work really well without passing it any more than
necessary.
First, Ms. Ward, I have to start off with a little bit of a
criticism, and I hope you will take it--and I believe my staff
has let you know about this in advance.
I have a constituent, Ms. Amy Wheeler, who, on 10-22, had
her and her mother's mobile home burn to the ground. And it was
unsavable, as mobile homes often are, once they get going. She
called FEMA on 10-24, as soon as the declaration was made. She
received a denial letter on 11-2, and I have that denial
letter, and what I find amazing, this is--and she has been
told, and I have the whole situation, that I will give you for
the record, or for your records.
Essentially, there is an automated denial that says, yes,
you have asked, yes, you may have had your house completely
burned to the ground, yes, FEMA people were on the ground and
FEMA people were out looking, and yet it says, ``Determination:
ineligible, insufficient damage.'' Mobile home is completely
gone.
This is a category, housing assistance, and the language,
and I'm not holding you responsible; but you are the messenger
here.
Ms. Ward. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. ``Based on your FEMA inspection, we have
determined that the disaster has not caused your home to be
unsafe to live in.``
Let's just say it continues on from there. This is one of
hundreds, actually, probably thousands at this point. But
hundreds of letters that were sent to people who lost
everything. And I realize, and I have been told in the past--
actually, I was told in anticipation, that nobody is proud of
this letter.
Ms. Ward. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. Do you need the Committee on Oversight and Reform
to write a letter to replace this letter? Or can you take back
with you the clear instructions, that a letter that, on its
face, is only going to serve to cause further pain and
suffering to the people who receive it, that FEMA will make a
change without legislative action.
Can you give us a reasonable assurance of that today? Or at
least that you will carry it back.
Ms. Ward. I think I can, sir. In the case of Mrs. Wheeler,
I actually think that there might be two, actually, two
problems. I think the hundreds of letters that you refer to,
that they received denials, were due to the homeowners or
residents having insurance, and at the time that they called
and registered for assistance, they had not been told of what
their insurance or disposition would be to their insurance
claim.
I think, unfortunately, Mrs. Wheeler should have received
that still ``bad letter,'' but I think in Mrs. Wheeler's case,
she received a letter that probably should have been replaced
by the insurance letter denial.
And basically what it does is ask them to settle with their
insurance and then come back to FEMA with what that disposition
is, so that we could assist possibly with any unmet needs, and
we know that, we are changing, are hopefully changing the
letters. I don't think that the committee has to do it in
legislation. But we are very aware that these letters of the
insurance denials caused much consternation, and certainly much
confusion in the way they are worded.
Mr. Issa. Let me ask you a question because I realize that
we can do what we usually do, except in this case the Committee
on Oversight--I have to be a little careful when I say this--we
could blame the lawyers, except our staff tend to be lawyers on
this committee.
But wouldn't it seem reasonable to you, as regional
director, somebody who has to deal with the people, that the
full and complete truth, either for Mrs. Wheeler and her
mother, or anybody else, is one, we recognize that your address
is within the affected area, therefore you are eligible.
Two, we recognize that you have met the 60 day requirement
to make a claim, something that is critical because you don't
make the claim, you are done.
Ms. Ward. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. Three, at this time, information is insufficient
to verify whether you will receive funding. Here are the
factors. Boom, boom, boom. Please be aware that your file shall
remain open for further followup. Use this reference number.
Now that is the way my insurance company would probably
have dealt with my house burning to the ground, and I don't
know how much, you know, how much I lost in it.
Is that, in layman's terms, a tool that will be helpful to
you, when you deal with people who have had these catastrophic
losses?
Ms. Ward. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more, and
there is probably hundreds of FEMA reiterations that went back
to Washington, asking for that type of rewrite.
Mr. Issa. OK. I have to tell you, Bobby Jindal is a dear
friend of mine. He came into Congress 2 years after I did and
we have been dear friends. He now of course is the Governor-
elect in Louisiana.
He brought me stories like this----
Ms. Ward. Oh, yes.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. And they didn't hit home until one
of my constituents have one.
Ms. Ward. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. And I went: But the whole trailer park is gone.
It is not even just this house.
Ms. Ward. That is exactly right. That is exactly right.
Mr. Issa. So I appreciate that and I appreciate your good
demeanor as we made that point abundantly clear.
Can I ask that you take special attention as to Mrs.
Wheeler and make sure that she gets an appropriate personal
letter----
Ms. Ward. I will. I was not made aware of Mrs. Wheeler but
I will take your letter, and make sure that someone
specifically calls her and goes over.
Mr. Issa. OK. That would be helpful, because I think she
deserves at least something that isn't automated.
Ms. Ward. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
Mr. Issa. I am going to switch over to Mr. Rey for a
second. I told you that you are all of USDA, and I know you
were in the audience earlier, so you heard tremendous accolades
for the work you have done to diminish, in some cases, and I am
particularly happy that Palomar mountain, that hadn't had a
fire in, I understand, 37 years, was savable, where, without
some of that clearing, it probably wouldn't have been.
But isn't it true that what sounds fairly small, 14
percent, that you won't be able to do, isn't it really a 100
percent of some areas that is 14 percent of the clearing? It is
not like you clear 14 percent less.
Mr. Rey. That is correct. There will be some areas where
projects are scheduled that will have to be delayed or
abandoned, at least delayed a year at a minimum, as we move to
retrofit the project and comply with this new decision.
Mr. Issa. So for the next foreseeable year or two, until
either the courts or processes change, we have areas that won't
be cleared, and as a result ,harm to homes and lives is clearly
in jeopardy as a result of this court ruling.
Mr. Rey. We estimate that about 400,000 acres of
treatments, nationwide, will be delayed by this ruling, putting
people at risk and in harm's way.
Mr. Issa. In a prudent perspective, California being the
poster child for that, how much of that 400,000 is here?
Mr. Rey. A fairly significant amount. I can get you the
specific----
Mr. Issa. Somewhere between a quarter and three-quarters,
though. It is a big chunk.
Mr. Rey. Yes. Probably about 30 to 40 percent.
Mr. Issa. OK. That is one that goes beyond just my
committee, but certainly we are going to be watching.
As to USDA, I have a particular ``bone'' to pick that I
think you are already aware of. We don't want to blindside
anyone. But why is it, corn is a crop, and avocado isn't?
Mr. Rey. Well, they are both crops but----
Mr. Issa. One of the you cover and the other gets no money.
Mr. Rey. For disaster payments?
Mr. Issa. Yes.
Mr. Rey. Yes. You know, that is a different part of USDA
than the one that I run, unfortunately.
Mr. Issa. I warned you.
Mr. Rey. But I can get you a response for the record.
Mr. Issa. OK.
Let me ask you a question because I want to make you take
the legalese hat off.
Corn takes, you know, less than a year to grow. It is
seasonal. If you burn it all to the ground, the next year you
actually probably get a better crop because you have the
benefit, if you will, of all that burn. Avocados, almonds,
pomegranates, any number of other orchard type crops, you burn
them, you have 5 years before you get anything.
Doesn't it fly in the face of common sense, that, in fact,
the disaster is far worse in the case of the loss of an
orchard, because it is far longer than it is in the case of--
whether it is radishes or corn.
Mr. Rey. Annual crops.
Mr. Issa. So is there any sensible reason you can justify
this in your mind, that I should be aware of, or this committee
should be aware of?
Mr. Rey. I think part of the reason that the crop insurance
program doesn't yet reach perennials like orchards is the
premiums would have to be significantly higher.
You know, the Farm Bill is currently before Congress. There
are some new proposals for disaster assistance. That might be
something we can look at as the Senate-House conference on the
Farm Bill continues. It starts its deliberations after the
Senate has completed its work.
Mr. Issa. OK. I am going to make the assumption, for the
record, that it has more to do with the amount of Congressmen
that get lobbied, in how many States, for how many votes.
Certainly, when I look at the sugar subsidy and the ethanol
subsidy, I don't have any question, it has very little to do
with the common sense, but, rather, with how many back yards it
is in.
As far as you know, is there any leeway--and this is
perhaps good for the USDA--leeway in the current law that would
allow these strict Federal guidelines to be waived or limited?
In other words, do you have any jurisdictional capability to do
any more than you are presently doing for the constituents that
are right here in Fallbrook, for example, with their avocado
losses?
Mr. Rey. We met with a number of the 2-weeks ago and the
Farm Services Agency, which is the agency that runs the
preponderance of the disaster assistance programs, is looking
in now at what the length of our flexibility is to provide some
assistance. So we are looking pretty hard at what we can do.
Both the Farm Services Agency and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service have made some money available. So while
we might not be able to give them crop insurance relief, we do
have some other disaster relief that is being made available to
them.
Mr. Issa. OK. As you know, it is over $30 million, and I
mentioned avocados. Unfortunately, ornamental trees and shrubs,
basically everything we do here in Fallbrook seems to be not
covered.
Mr. Rey. Right. There is a lot of nursery stock that was
damaged in the fire.
Mr. Issa. Yes; an awful lot. This is not directly related
to you but it is pretty significant to the people in this
district, and because I note, or noted that the Governor's
office had representation here, I wanted to make a point that
the Army Corps of Engineers has been unable to clear the San
Luis Rey River of trees and brushes, which first of all burn,
and second of all, clog the ability for draining of the San
Luis Rey.
So if you don't end up getting burned as a result of this
river that runs through the area, then, instead, you will
simply flood the surrounding communities, and that failure is
because the Fish and Game, the State agency, has decided, after
almost 20 years, that they are entitled to 65 acres of
mitigation not previously asked for, when, in fact, this
project was fully federally mitigated.
I thought I would mention that only because, one, we are
still talking fire, and two, we are about to go into flood
season, and I thought I would take advantage of your presence
to make at least the representatives of the Governor well aware
that the issues that we have related to agencies don't end with
fires.
Mr. Rey. And we did have experience, post 2003 fire, that
we had some catastrophic floods as a consequence of the failure
to get brush cleared. So that is a real problem.
Mr. Issa. And I guess back to FEMA, I will ask the easy
question. When you say meals-ready-to-eat, you are talking
about military MRE types?
Ms. Ward. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. OK. I am an old C ration guy, so I actually think
those are an improvement.
Ms. Ward. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. And the good news is is if you have one left
over, it is good for years.
Ms. Ward. That is right.
Mr. Issa. But other than the successes--and I want to
congratulate you, not just at the Qualcomm Stadium, but
throughout the region. FEMA arrived quick. You brought people
in from all over the country. The blue shirts were immediately
noted, and I think that helps dispel the idea that every
disaster is going to be another Katrina or Rita, that in fact
FEMA can do and do well.
But nobody said a word, in the earlier panel, about any
shortcomings that FEMA had in this process, and I think you
should be commended for that. But what are your lessons
learned? What resources should we, in the Federal Government,
be adding to your capability that you have learned as a result
of this disaster?
Ms. Ward. Well, quite honestly, Congressman, I think you
are already doing that in terms of the post-Katrina reform act
and the budget that FEMA has benefited from since Katrina.
As you know, prior to Katrina, FEMA was no bigger than a
medium size high school, and we are now finally getting the
resources that we need. One is we are establishing incident
management teams, that actually, right now, they are an
ancillary duty, so we will have permanent teams that can work
with the State and prepare for them.
Second, we are doing 24-hour watch centers for situational
awareness, which is benefiting us greatly.
In terms of the fire, I think one of the successes that we
tried here, in California, for the first time, and we will
continue to do, and we have learned greatly from, is the
unified command with the State of California, very, very early
on, and putting Federal and State division supervisors down
with each local government.
We have not tried that before here, and it was a huge
success. So we will start now training the rest of the State on
this success story. So it is a lesson learned, that we can take
statewide. Those would be a few of the things.
Mr. Issa. Now the earlier panel did mention the assets that
were brought to bear late in the fire, particularly overhead
architecture that gave greater visibility to where the fire
was, and one might say where the red team, blue teams were, or
could be.
I mean, it is an area that clearly, you don't direct
funding for, to bring to the battle. Is that an area, though,
that you believe substantial resources should be brought, and
if so, what resources?
Ms. Ward. I do think it's a technology that we can benefit
from. Several days into the fire, we turned to DOD and asked
for some of their imagery resources, and they agreed to fly
some of those resources, as a training mission, one, for
themselves, but to see what actually we could benefit from,
certainly at the incident commander level.
And we do think, while we have not used it on fires much,
in Southern California this was a true training mission, but I
do think that they could benefit greatly from this technology,
especially in an area like Southern California where your
perimeters can be mapped and that can directly go back down to
the IC to see how the fire is moving and the wind conditions.
So it is not something that FEMA does but we certainly can
mission-assign that task to those areas who do provide that
technology, and from what we saw in the training missions, it
was very successful and something that I think we should
continue.
Mr. Rey. There is one complication, though----
Mr. Issa. Yes, Mr. Rey.
Mr. Rey [continuing]. And that is that much of that
technology is still classified, so the military would have to
use it directly, or declassify it so civilian operators could
use it. It will have to be one of those two things.
Mr. Issa. And I have the good fortune of being on the
Intelligence Committee, so I am well aware that we are not
going to tell you the license plates of every vehicle in the
area, to use something out of the television genre. But that is
a challenge and I appreciate you bringing it to us.
A couple more questions. Those resources, post the
incident, in order to lock into time the actual damage done. It
is obviously a resource you don't have.
Is that a resource that would help you in accurately
assessing who gets the letters? But also accurately assessing
fraud that may be perpetrated after a major disaster?
Ms. Ward. I think it would be beneficial in terms of
getting into areas that we can't put our assessment teams down
into quickly enough. But the specifics of damages not being
able to be seen, like damages that we would say is major damage
to a home, from smoke. If it wasn't burned to the ground,
you're not going to be able to get that damage. So we would
want to go back and----
Mr. Issa. Even if it were declassified, that we can see the
smoke damage inside a house.
Ms. Ward. That is exactly right. So I do think that it
would help us in significant disasters to be able to do that
aerial, and we do do that, actually, in some widespread
flooding, some hurricane damages, to actually keep from having
to put boots on the ground to do that individual assessment.
Mr. Issa. A little closer to home, we had an interesting
conundrum, if you will, in reimbursement, that we haven't
resolved, but I want to make you aware of it.
The La Jolla Indian tribe, and the chairman is expected to
be here shortly, was devastated in this fire. They were
evacuated and many of them stayed in a hotel at the Pechanga
Casino.
Ms. Ward. Correct.
Mr. Issa. Now Pechanga tribe did not say anything other
than, you know, we are essentially closing off our casino rooms
to make room. They made their hotel available and granted lots
of other assistance.
Now no good deed goes unpunished, unfortunately, in the
Federal way of thinking. They offered a hotel. The hotel has a
regular rate. The people stayed in them, and when I encouraged
Pechanga to--even though they said, well, we would give it to
them, I said, wait a second, they would much rather you give
them the reimbursement as a separate gift, you provided
something for which every other citizen was getting, you know,
if eligible, was getting a reimbursement check.
They were told that wasn't the case, that the tribes, even
though separately incorporated, were being treated as one.
Right now, we are a little frustrated in that La Jolla,
desperately poor, doesn't have the money to rebuild, they are
living in trailers out there, and the money that normally would
have been paid to the hotel operator, which to be honest,
Pechanga has said if they receive the reimbursement, they will
separately gift that to La Jolla. But the Federal Government
would normally pay for that.
Can you think of a valid reason that we shouldn't pay for
La Jolla Indian Reservation people who stayed in those hotels,
won't get paid, while if a La Jolla Indian Reservation person
went to any other hotel, they are getting reimbursed?
Ms. Ward. Congressman, it is my understanding that the Red
Cross, after about 4 days, provided reimbursement to the Rincon
Harrah's as well as the casino. So I will look into that, to
make sure.
Mr. Issa. OK.
Ms. Ward. But it was my understanding that there was about
four or 5 days, when they evacuated to those places, that they
weren't reimbursed. But it was about four or 5 days into the
event, that we facilitated a meeting with the Red Cross and our
tribal liaisons to have the casino reimbursed for the remainder
of the stay.
So I will look into that and be sure to get back to you.
Mr. Issa. OK. And I appreciate it. The La Jolla are among
the most challenged.
Ms. Ward. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. Quite frankly, they are what Indian tribes had in
this area before casinos.
Ms. Ward. That is right.
Mr. Issa. And so it is an area where we are going to need a
lot of rebuilding.
I guess, do you have other things for me, or for this
committee, that you think we should take away?
Mr. Rey. One take-away that I would add is in responding to
the first panel's discussion over night flying----
Mr. Issa. Yes.
Mr. Rey [continuing]. That is not merely a technology
question. It is a safety question. The Forest Service
discontinued night flying in a fire environment in 1978, after
a midair collision between two helicopters whose pilots did
have night vision goggles, resulted in the death of eight
firefighters.
So yes, there is technology available to facilitate night
flying, but it is inherently less safe than flying during the
day, because even night vision goggles in a firefighting
environment have limitations, because the fire flares up, the
fire is going to blind the pilot who is using night vision
goggles.
So it is a tradeoff, and it is a tradeoff, that if we make
it the other way, we will undoubtedly increase the number of
air fatalities that we experience.
Mr. Issa. OK. Last but not least, are we doing enough? Do
we have the resources defined for coordinating the after-action
Federal, State and local? Or do you feel that, in fact, as much
as there have been good things said about who is working with
whom, as Federal entities, do you believe that the coordination
of all these things, such as what we discussed here today, is
formalized in a way in which they will be done before next fire
season?
Ms. Ward. Congressman, I can't speak to the firefighting
resource activity and their after-action process, but I can
tell you that in FEMA's case, we don't let anyone return home,
quite frankly, without a multi-agency after-action sessions in
each of their functional area of responsibilities. But I can't
speak to the specific firefighting routines.
Mr. Rey. With regard to the firefighting, the improvements
that we have identified will be in place by the next fire
season.
Mr. Issa. Including those J model C-130's?
Mr. Rey. Including the J models.
Mr. Issa. OK. Last but not least, Ms. Ward, I will leave
you with this. The trailers that need to be stored on an
ongoing basis. Camp Pendleton has been suggested.
One of the interesting things I find as the Congressman
representing Camp Pendleton is my 129,000 acres can do
everything. Just ask the people around the area.
What I would like you to take back is nobody is pushing
back on doing their fair share. But the history of trailers
being stored and unused is not particularly good.
And what I might ask you to seek is a dual use capability,
that if those trailers can be reasonably used in some
approvable way by the base, so that they not lay empty and
unopened until needed, that might be the ultimate win-win.
They are not asking to be paid for rental, but it occurs to
me to have resources like that, it may be that in fact they
should be made available for some Federal use.
I joked, quite honestly, I joked with the base commander,
the regional commander, about, oh, couldn't we store them on
Del Mar Beach? He immediately thought that was just peachy. But
quite frankly, there are possibilities that they could serve a
dual use for transit personnel, military personnel, and I can
assure you, they won't last any less time than they do sitting
unmanned.
And so if you could take that back, to see whether or not
that could be accomplished.
Ms. Ward. I will definitely do that.
Mr. Issa. OK. And with that, I would like to thank my
second panel. You have been good. I have been a little briefer.
That is the advantage of having just one microphone and two
people.
OK. Then I will close this by thanking everyone who came
here today. We are going to dispense with the third panel
because we have hit the time, and the folks are not here. So
without objection, that is it. Without objection, this
concludes it. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]