PUBLISHED 6/27/08 ----

A shower of lightning strikes last weekend added to California firefighters’ headaches. Already battling stubborn wildfires, California’s stretched firefighting resources were further stretched to respond to hundreds of lightning-caused blazes.

As flames chew their way through thousands of acres of timber land, homes are threatened, families displaced and the lives of firefighters risked in an annual battle to save California. Meanwhile, Californians are choking on the smoke from these fires.

This all-too-common conflagration — this one coming so soon in the fire season and in a record-dry year — forms the backdrop for the Legislature’s consideration of a series of critical fire-protection bills.

In a nutshell, California cannot continue to sprawl into high-fire-risk areas without providing adequate firefighting resources and necessary precautions. California taxpayers cannot continue to pay nearly $900 million a year to fight wildfires.

Four bills being considered by the Legislature would help curb these costs. They are:

 • AB2447, authored by Assemblyman Dave Jones of Sacramento and supported by firefighters’ organizations. It prohibits new homes in high-fire-risk zones and so-called state responsibility areas unless subdivision plans are approved by the state Board of Forestry. In addition, the bill requires that a local fire agency also certify it will protect the subdivision, and there must be at least two ways in and out of the subdivision.

• A trio of bills is authored by state Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego, an area plagued by recent devastating wildfires. They include SB1500, which obliges counties to provide fire protection in high-risk areas; SB1595, which emphasizes fire-proofing areas around buildings; and SB1617, which imposes a $50 annual fee on all dwellings in hazardous areas to pay for emergency response.

Legislative support for the measures divides along party lines. With  developers opposing the limits, Republicans contend the requirements usurp local government control over land use.

To some extent, that is true. And it is the latest is a series of legislation passed in response to local government’s refusal to “just say no” to developers who propose to sprawl into foothills and mountainous  areas, placing homeowners and taxpayers at risk.

When local government leaders fail to show the political will to bring reasonable controls over development, state lawmakers intervene.

A recent example of this is the state mandate that developers must identify water supplies for their projects before they can begin swinging their hammers. Water: a basic need. Why did it take a state law to assure it?

When the political will to require critical fire protection is lacking among local government officials, state lawmakers must step in.