Laws protecting endangered plants are now endangering lives and property

Earlier this month, the outgoing chief of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District wrote a blistering letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and Department of Parks and Recreation Director Armando Quintero.

“Governor Newsom, this letter is a direct request for your intervention,” Chief Paige Meyer wrote.

The fire chief asked for immediate executive action to address wildfire risk after the California State Parks largely blocked a life-saving wildfire mitigation program. The fire district developed and funded a “comprehensive, science-based” plan to identify and mitigate wildfire risk in areas the state itself had identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. But because some of the land was State Parks-owned, the plan didn’t work out as planned.

Due to restrictions on what could be cut, where and under what conditions, the wildfire mitigation that was planned for 300 acres was completed on only 22. “Final project costs totaled $120,691.44,” the chief wrote, “with approximately 75 percent consumed by State Parks-mandated environmental compliance, monitoring, and oversight requirements, leaving only 25 percent applied to actual wildfire mitigation work on the ground.”

This battle is happening in California right now, a year after a fire that reignited on State Parks-owned land burned down Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

Laws that protect endangered species of plants are now endangering lives and property. Perhaps different administrators could interpret those laws differently and enforce them sensibly. But something has to change, and fast.

The financial cost of not changing the enforcement of these plant-protecting laws is incalculable. However, teams of attorneys are working on those calculations right now. Multiple lawsuits have been filed to recover damages from the fires last January and we all will pay the price, one way or another.

There are really only three sources of funds to compensate the victims of catastrophic wildfires: insurance customers, ratepayers and taxpayers. Conveniently, they’re the same people.

Californians have already seen huge increases in premiums for property insurance. Some companies canceled policies or stopped writing new ones until state regulators allowed rate increases based on the risk of catastrophic wildfires. And now the cost of insurance is a catastrophe all its own.

With regulators’ approval, electricity rates include surcharges to recover the cost that utilities pay for wildfire damage.

And taxpayers are on the hook if lawsuits against the city, county or state are successful. Liability is already a significant budget drain in Los Angeles.

Southern California Edison is offering settlements to victims who are willing to give up the right to sue the company. That won’t help with the lawsuit filed last year by the County of Los Angeles. “Edison failed to de-energize all of its electrical equipment in and around the area of the Eaton Canyon on January 7, 2025,” the complaint states, noting also that Edison “admitted in a public filing with the California Public Utilities Commission that a fault was detected at approximately 6:11 p.m. on its Eagle-Rock-Gould transmission circuit” about the time the Eaton Fire ignited “under the base of its transmission towers in Eaton Canyon.”

Investor-owned utilities such as SCE have unlimited liability due to “inverse condemnation.” This means that in exchange for having certain rights to have their equipment located on public and private land, they are liable for 100% of the damage from a fire that is started by their equipment, even if they were not negligent.

Decades ago, the state utilized fire mitigation practices, such as creating firebreaks and using prescribed burns to reduce fuel. So when wildfires ignited, the damage was limited. No longer. Thanks to environmental laws and regulations, mindlessly enforced despite obvious fire danger, plants and air quality now take priority over firebreaks and fuel reduction. “Smoke regulations” enacted by the California Air Resources Board in 2000 limited controlled burns. Within ten years, wildfires were breaking records for destruction.

Does inverse condemnation apply to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power? At least one lawsuit, filed by attorney Mark Geragos in December, charges that the city-owned LADWP’s reservoir, water tanks and electrical-distribution equipment serving Pacific Palisades are “public works” that damaged the plaintiff’s property, which was “effectively taken for public use without just compensation.” The city may have unlimited liability for Palisades Fire damage.

Recklessly protecting endangered plants could bankrupt us all.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on X @Susan_Shelley