Larger bureaucracies, bigger budgets, and expanded staffing do not automatically yield more effective governance.
My recent drive from Los Angeles to Malibu marked my first post-wildfire crossing of the Pacific Palisades, and witnessing the scale of the damage firsthand was a stark reminder of how vast the recovery remains. The charred husks strewn along the Pacific Coast Highway, 21 months after the disaster, highlight several challenges, including the painfully slow pace of rebuilding.
Being in California, the state still hasn’t fully confronted the root causes of the fires or the shortcomings of the response. But better late than never, I welcome a fresh study Gov. Gavin Newsom commissioned from the nonprofit Fire Safety Research Institute. Released this month, it examines the ignition points and how multiple agencies behaved in the aftermath. The conclusions aren’t encouraging.
The New York Times captured the gist best: “The comprehensive analysis found that while several state and local agencies fell fatally short in their preparation and response, the clearest lesson from the disaster was the extent to which climate-driven fires are outstripping modern firefighting.” The report notes that Los Angeles officials did not treat the fires with sufficient seriousness at the outset. County authorities managed Altadena’s evacuations in a chaotic fashion, and they were unprepared for the intensity of the fire storms.
We’ve all heard about some baffling missteps. The Santa Ynez Reservoir was drained during the fires due to a repair to its protective cover, and it remains empty again (though it is being refilled). The California Coastal Commission allegedly delayed new permits for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to install fire-resistant utility poles because of concerns about an endangered plant. The commission disputes that claim—and there is still heated debate involving several agencies.
If we can’t get multiple agencies to agree on a minor matter about milkvetch, I remain skeptical that California can handle the basics. The report describes the tragedy as involving “multiple interlinked systems rather than any single factor or failure.” In one Patch example, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department stayed at normal staffing levels, while the Los Angeles Fire Department, reportedly worried about overtime costs, allegedly reacted more slowly.
This is a microcosm of California’s approach to governance: larger agencies, higher expenditures, and broader payrolls. The left hand often lacks visibility into what the right hand is doing. Other priorities—budgetary considerations, union demands, turf battles—tend to take precedence over public protection. This isn’t driven by malice, but it reflects the fundamental character of government.
Even after the state paused rebuilding rules, the process remains mired by the sheer number of involved agencies. How could California realistically streamline a wildfire-response system that comprises a maze of local, county, regional, and state bureaucracies? The federal government is involved as well, since roughly 45 percent of the state’s land is federal-owned. The wildfire predicament is a statewide issue, so the takeaway should be relevant beyond Los Angeles.
Moreover, the report contends that California must rethink its overall strategy for wildfire resilience. The Times analysis noted that climate-driven fires are intensifying, challenging the state’s conventional fire-fighting methods. But how often do governments respond efficiently to external economic or environmental shifts? All governments are inherently slow-moving.
Everything governmental is tethered to the past. As a nonrelated illustration, the nation’s education system remains largely as it was in the 19th century—despite technological advances that should have sparked a revolution. When COVID struck, private schools adapted and delivered successful at-home learning, whereas public schools watched students fall behind and truancy rates climb. This pattern isn’t unique to education; it applies to any public service, including firefighting.
My concern is that California policymakers will read that summary about climate-driven fire risks and default to their familiar playbook: blame climate change and double down on climate policies that aim to alter global weather patterns rather than adjust our regulatory framework to bolster resilience against warming trends.
California’s union-influenced state and local governments aren’t inclined to recalibrate firefighting budgets to stretch dollars further. State firefighters typically earn total compensation exceeding $250,000 annually, with some Los Angeles officials reaching pay scales that are hard to fathom. Rather than trimming costs, California has continued to raise pay.
California officials haven’t been candid about brush clearance either. Four years ago, Newsom touted a major wildfire-prevention initiative that, at the time, had completed not a single project. We hear promises, but action remains scant.
That’s the nature of government, you see: it doesn’t excel at many things and too often fails to extract lessons from even the most informative reports. Riding along the Pacific Coast Highway offered a stark, personal reminder of this hard truth.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
