Firefighters neutralize a hot spot in a home destroyed by the Eaton Fire Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025, in Altadena, California.
John Locher/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
John Locher/AP
President Biden promised that the federal government “will give anything and everything” to help California. But recovery could take years.
And with President-elect Donald Trump taking office next Monday and Republicans in control of the House and Senate, the Republican Party will soon have full control of spending, including disaster relief.
Many Republicans say aid to California should come with certain conditions. Among them is Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who said California leaders made “stupid mismanagement decisions” on wildfire mitigation.
“We need to get people to assess and take responsibility for the risks themselves,” Johnson told NPR’s Steve Inskeep. “I think what’s happened over the decades here with federal disaster relief is that more and more individuals, more and more states are relying solely on the federal government. “
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. speaks during a press conference at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, December 18, 2024.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
In a interview with Morning editionSen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif. said, “California has always been there for other parts of the country in times of crisis. And now it’s time for the country to be there for California, no strings attached.”
As of Wednesday morning, California fires have burned 40,644 acres, destroyed more than 12,300 structures and left 24 people dead, according to The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
“They haven’t taken the mitigation measures,” Johnson said. “People are building very expensive structures that are not properly protected.”
Johnson spoke with Morning edition on the conditions of aid he wishes to see.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Steve Inskeep: I guess there are two parts to this. The first is what policy changes would you like? But before that, it seems to me there is the question of whether you want to use people in distress as leverage, whether you want to say, “I’m not going to help you unless you accept my change in policy.” “. What do you think?
Senator Ron Johnson: I think we first have to look at the economic concept of moral hazard. And I think what’s happened over the decades here with federal disaster relief is that more and more individuals, more and more states are just relying on the federal government when something happens, whether it’s a hurricane, a fire, you know, another natural disaster that the federal government should step in and bail them out. And the result of that is that they passed laws that made it very unattractive for private insurers to come in and insure their properties and properly assess the risks. They encouraged people to build multi-million, even billion-dollar homes and complexes in very vulnerable areas. And they didn’t take the mitigation measures. According to this article in The Wall Street JournalCalifornia burned four and a half million acres a year. It’s the early 1900s. They took mitigation measures. They let sheep and cattle graze to limit the brush. They got rid of the firebreaks. They auctioned off the forests, and that acreage dropped to an average of 250,000 acres a year, and now it’s back to four and a half million because of very bad policy. So we can’t bail people out and let them take on more and more risk.
Inskeep: There’s a lot to say here when it comes to politics, and I want to get there. But just to put politics out of the way, senator, you mentioned hurricanes. Would your opinion be exactly the same if we were talking about a hurricane in Florida, which becomes a red state, as opposed to California, which is a blue state?
Johnson: No. Again, I generally vote against these disaster relief programs.
Inskeep: Wait, your opinion would be the same regardless of state. Is that what you say?
Johnson: That’s right. Once again, we must stop creating moral hazard. We need to get people to assess and take on the risks themselves, instead of just constantly transferring them to the federal government. Again, people build in flood zones. People are building very expensive structures that are not properly protected or are also vulnerable to some of these hazards. So once again we create one moral hazard after another and the problem gets worse instead of less.
Inskeep: That raises a big question, senator, because we’re talking about climate change, climate-related disasters, fires, hurricanes, etc. And we find out that not only Florida, but also North Carolina is in a hurricane zone and the fire season in California lasts not a few months, but covers almost the whole year and almost the entire state. In fact, there are wildfires in other parts of the country. So it’s everywhere. And if that’s our starting point, and then we focus again on California and the danger of wildfires, what do you want California to do to make itself more resilient to future disasters or fires?
Johnson: Take a look at what they did when they reduced the average number of acres burned each year from four and a half million to 250,000. Again, they let the sheep and cattle graze. They auctioned off the forests to be logged so that they could be cleaned and created firebreaks. Then the environmentalists took over, and then they stopped doing all these very sensible mitigation efforts. And now politicians are blaming climate change, as if humanity can actually change the climate. We can’t. The climate is always changing and will always change. We can adapt to it and we can mitigate it. They stopped mitigating it, which is why they’re burning up to four and a half million acres every year in California again. It’s just stupid policy and they won’t admit it.
Inskeep: Just note that there is all the science on climate change and human-caused climate change. I think you’re saying you don’t accept that or you don’t accept that as the main thing that’s happening.
Johnson: No, he was corrupted. It is corrupt science.
Inskeep: Okay, I get it. If we’re talking about this particular situation, it seems to me that there are some specific things that can be done that don’t even cost that much. You can fireproof houses. Moving vegetation even a few meters from houses makes a difference. But you have a situation where people are building houses in areas that are also forested, that also have meadows, that are also nature. And it’s going to be dry. And it’s getting drier and drier. So are there specific things that you would ask Californians to do in terms of building codes, in terms of how they bring communities together? Or is it just, as you say, sending sheep out to graze?
Johnson: Well, look, I think tile roofs are probably better than cedar shake roofs. This has been pretty obvious for decades. These houses are probably less likely to catch fire when those sparks and woods are literally flying in 100 mph winds. Take a look at what actually caused this and soberly assess what you need to do. But again, back to what they did when they dramatically reduced the number of acres of wildfires. They know how to do that. They simply refuse to do it.
Inskeep: Do you think it’s up to Congress to tell them what to do at the state and local level when it comes to forest management, building codes, anything?
Johnson: Yes. They are asking for money from American taxpayers to finance their mismanagement. Absolutely, our role should be to tell them what they need to do if they want to get money. This is common sense. Otherwise, in California, they made them say that it was they who had seen the risks. They are the ones who made stupid decisions due to poor management. They earned a lot of income. They waste it all the time.
Inskeep: And if you don’t get the changes you want, you would say, “Californians, you’re on your own.” The federal government, the United States of America, is not going to help you. You are outside. » ?
Johnson: That’s what I would do.
Inskeep: And you would do that regardless of the state, even if it was a disaster in Wisconsin, which is not impossible to imagine.
Johnson: We’re not really subject to those types of dangers. And we do carry out forestry activities and we try to manage our forests as best as possible. In particular, state and county owned corporations are pitted against federal corporations because we have stupid federal laws.
Arezou Rezvani edited the broadcast version of this story. This article was edited by Obed Manuel.
