Was Massive L.A.-Area Blaze Mismanaged?

(CBS)  California is breathing a sigh of relief after a powerful storm lost much of its punch Wednesday. It caused a few small mudslides overnight, but nothing on the scale some had predicted after wildfires left the soil ripe for them.

The greatest concern was about the area outside Los Angeles - hit by the massive Station fire, which began in late August and stretched well into September. It burned about 160,000 acres and killed two firefighters. And questions remain about whether it could have been averted, as CBS News correspondent Sandra Hughes reports.

CBS News first met Cindy Pain just days after her home in the Angeles National Forest burned to the ground.

"I got my grandmother's necklace and my wedding ring and that's it," Pain said, sobbing.

But Pain was lucky compared to Julius Goff, who got trapped by the flames with another neighbor.

"We were crying. Both of us were crying," Goff said. Both thought they were going to die.

Goff was burned over half his body. He and many of his neighbors say firefighters missed the chance to douse the blaze early on.

"There was not one helicopter, not one airplane," he said.

Pain agreed. "No support whatsoever," she said. "We were just watching the canyon burn towards us."

The U.S. Forest Service was in charge of the firefight from day one and it appears they underestimated what they were up against. According to internal fire incident reports obtained by CBS News, less than 24 hours after the fire started, officials reduced the number of fire fighters on the ground from 231 1o 191.

They also slashed the aerial assault from five helicopters to three, even though the fire, while small, was burning in rugged terrain not accessible to ground crews.

Perhaps because "somebody's trying to save money," Goff said.

An internal Forest Service memo written three weeks before the fire reminded forest supervisors of "the requirement that fire resources be managed to ensure no deficits" and stressed that "overtime expenditures be minimized."

An official review of the station fire is now underway.

"We'll find out from the review why the judgments were made and I have no reason to believe at this point in time that it was a mistake in judgment," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

"What will happen next time?" Pain asked. "Will we be simply left to defend ourselves again?"

For now the U.S. Forest Service is defending itself, saying officials believed the fire was under control before they pulled back resources - an apparent miscalculation with an estimated $100 million price tag in firefighting expenses alone.

[asthmatic2]

As disgruntlement stated, "there is no budget for fire suppression costs, every year fire agencies spend
WHATEVER they deem necessary to put the fires out and at the end of the year the federal government pays the bill -NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS." Is it possible the forest service simply lets the fire run until the forest service knows that it will produce enough income to keep them and all of the contractors in the money for another year? Monetary gain, kickbacks from fire suppressant contractors, (have you seen the trucks those guys drive?) come to mind. Is there any other reason an "expert" could misjudge a fire's catastrophic outcome in September, in Southern California, in known drought conditions?

[safeser]

I am retired from the Angeles National Forest. Why isn't someone asking Jodi Noirons what her role in making decisions about how her decisions impacted the outcome of the station fire. She has never been a supporter of the firefighters on her forest or any other forest yet management places her in positions to make decisions about their careers. She has absolutely no respect for firefighters. What about the time when firefighters picketed the Supervisors office asking management to remove her from her position as she has constantly harassed firefighters on her forest finding any way she could to get rid of the rank and file. Somebody please investigate this woman before anyone else gets killed.

[disgruntlement]

As a 2nd generation firefighter I am so sick of the mainstream media reporting misinformation about fires. This Forest Service memo "to cut costs" refers to what is called the Wildland Preparedness budget, these are the funds allocated every year for the base salaries of firefighters to come to work every day and be avilable for fires at their regular duty stations. The memo refers to keeping costs down while employees ARE NOT on fires. There is no budget for fire suppression costs, every year agencies spend whatever they deem neccessary to put fires out, and at the end of the year the Federal Gov't pays the bill- no matter how much it is. The area these residents were in was too dangerous for fire personnel to be there, or for anyone to be there for that matter. The only one to blame for this massive fire is mother nature- this area has not burned in decades and was primed and ready for fire, and under the right weather conditions, there was simply not much we humans could do. Get your facts straight CBS.

[Oregon_State_OSU]

rightbehind October 15, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
They're wasting a fortune flying airplanes and helicopters around fighting those fires. They should put in a sprinkler system and be done with it.

Thats A fantastic Idea. Install a sprinkler system on the roofs of all the houses and require residents to to spray and cut plants and brush 100 feet away from their homes every year.

[rightbehind]

They're wasting a fortune flying airplanes and helicopters around fighting those fires. They should put in a sprinkler system and be done with it.