To address the spiraling costs of wildfires, Gov. Gavin Newsom is pushing for a controversial plan that helps reduces the amount utility companies pay after wildfires. Below, a Creek Fire survivor says California hasn’t learned from past blazes, and believes this proposal puts victims first. The opposing view: A Palisades Fire survivor argues the plan is another bailout for profit-making companies.

Guest Commentary written by

Joe Denham

Joe Denham survived the Creek Fire in 2020. He serves on the boards of the Sierra Unified School District and the Sierra Resource Conservation District.

Six years ago, the Creek Fire tore through the Sierra National Forest. Tens of thousands of people were forced to flee with almost no warning, leaving their homes with only what they could carry. 

The fire burned 13 acres of my family’s ranch, and many of my friends and neighbors lost homes and structures. In the years that followed, our community began the long process of rebuilding and recovering.

California hasn’t learned from what happened to us in 2020. I’m worried we’re running out of time before the next catastrophic fire.

That’s why I support the wildfire recovery reforms Gov. Gavin Newsom and state leaders are discussing, because they’ll ensure victims get paid first. Any serious reform must put victims ahead of out-of-state interests like hedge funds, trial attorneys and insurance companies, who’ve profited while victims in communities like mine were left waiting. 

I’ve spent most of my life caring for the land. I’ve seen the devastation caused by wildfires while working in and around the Sierra — as a firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service and Cal Fire, as a river guide and as a member of the community. 

When I talk about wildfire risk and forest management, it’s from lived experience. I spend a lot of time thinking about what it takes for our community to be resilient — not just to survive a fire, but to recover from one. 

What I’ve seen, both personally and professionally, is a recovery system in California that is not built for the realities we’re facing. 

In Fresno County, our schools feel it when families who can’t get coverage, or can’t afford what little coverage is left. They decide they can’t afford to rebuild here and move away. Our local economy feels it when businesses that depend on those families don’t have enough customers to stay open. 

Fire takes a toll on communities beyond physical destruction. 

In the wake of the fire, families across the Sierra Nevada foothills watched their insurance policies get canceled, or their premiums climb past what they could afford. 

Many of us were pushed onto the state’s FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort, and it’s expensive for what little it actually covers. I’ve heard enough from neighbors to know I’m not the only one worried it won’t be able to pay out if another major fire strikes.

Then there’s the rebuilding process. Instead of a straightforward path to recovery, too many Creek Fire victims were met with years of litigation and disputes, watching attorney fees and outside investors eat into their settlements before they ever saw a dime.

Families who lost everything were left behind by the system that was supposed to help them.

The recovery wasn’t straightforward, but the solution is: real reform that invests in wildfire prevention, fixes the insurance market so coverage is affordable and available, and overhauls the recovery system so victims come first.

Every fire season that passes without reform is another season where a community like mine could go through exactly what we did — and come out the other side with even less to rebuild with.

California has the chance to change that before it happens again. I hope our leaders take that chance this year, not after the next fire forces their hand.