Are evacuations ever mandatory?

[Pi1otguy]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...umped-in-hot-tub-in-attempt-to-flee-fire.html

Two of the people injured refused a mandatory evacuation order, said Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore. He said that the two didn’t realize how serious the threat of the fire was, and that they thought they could protect themselves by jumping into a Jacuzzi.

The hills of LA are a blaze, some places haven't burned in 30 - 100 years prior, & a huge pyrocumlus cloud billows tens of thousands of feet in the air.

Year after year I hear about "mandatory evacuations" and those who refuse to go only to get hurt or rescued at the last moment. I'm all for individuals' rights to destroy themselves, but not if they endanger others in the process.

Are evacuation orders enforceable or merely suggestions? Can the police actually drag people away from imminent danger against their will?

 

[mikea]

http://www.fark.com/cgi/ordershirt.pl?IDLink=4608857

 

[Tim]

They may have the power to do so, but not the authority. Been lots of people that stayed and saved their property. Been some that died trying.
Should be a free to make the decision.

 

[tonycondon]

They may have the power to do so, but not the authority. Been lots of people that stayed and saved their property. Been some that died trying.
Should be a free to make the decision.

true, but law enforcement should, IMO, leave them for dead once they decline leaving. If they want to fight it out they are on their own.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Should be a free to make the decision.

Yea, but in my mind they shouldn't ask others to endanger themselves to rescue them. They should have a viable shelter/plan if they stay.

30+ yr bush feed 80 ft flames vs. 2 people in a Jacuzzi.

 

[Doggtyred]

They may have the power to do so, but not the authority. Been lots of people that stayed and saved their property. Been some that died trying.
Should be a free to make the decision.

As a landowner, I have a problem being told to leave my property.

As a medic and former firefighter, I have a problem being put in jeopardy to rescue someone who had ample opportunity to leave beforehand.

Making things mandatory might make a few extra people leave who might have stayed, but more than anything else if you make people responsible for the cost of being rescued after staying despite a mandatory evac, or make it known that rescue may not be possible and you are on your own, then it may level the playing field between those two points of view.

 

[fgcason]

IMHO, if the guys that know what they are doing get nervous or abandon ship, you should probably take that as a big hint if you don't know what's going on at a very realistic level. I'll only stay if I KNOW I can realistically get out safely on my own without assistance.

A friend of mine lives in an area that was under mandatory evacuation for a week due to a well established forest fire west of Denver several years ago. They really pushed getting everyone out. They made it clear in no uncertain terms that once told, anyone that stayed was on their own unless a fire truck just happened to be driving by with empty seats at the time which was unlikely if the fire line got that far. She knew that she had 3 escape routes in 3 different directions, had two vehicles and could watch the advancing fire line that was being hammered with air and ground support so she stayed there hosing everything down. Sleeping was done in 2 hour intervals only when the fire wasn't advancing. All she had to do was run to one of the vehicles twist the key that's already in the ignition and drive. If anyone left the area, they were denied reentry into the area.

I was in a mandatory evacuation zone at a campground last year next to a big grass fire. I had everything hooked up with the key in the ignition for a quick emergency evacuation and kept an eye on things. Visibility was down to about 150 feet at times. The only reason I stayed was that the fire brigade was using the area between the campground and the fire as a staging area and the county operation based there was using all of their huge water trucks to soak the perimeter of the area. If they had even looked like they were thinking about to pull out, they would they would have been first in line outta here..BEHIND ME.

 

[TMetzinger]

As a landowner, I have a problem being told to leave my property.

As a medic and former firefighter, I have a problem being put in jeopardy to rescue someone who had ample opportunity to leave beforehand.

Making things mandatory might make a few extra people leave who might have stayed, but more than anything else if you make people responsible for the cost of being rescued after staying despite a mandatory evac, or make it known that rescue may not be possible and you are on your own, then it may level the playing field between those two points of view.

Look at Katrina. From what I saw on the media (and we all know they're never wrong), if I were living in New Orleans in the day or two before Katrina hit I would have gotten the "you're on your own" message loud and clear.

You makes your choices and you takes your chances.

 

[Matthew]

My folks live in fire country in Colorado. The last time they had an evacuation order, people who decided to stay were asked, by the sheriff dept, for a list of their next of kin. That sort of drove the point home.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The circumstances are so varied, it's hard to give a general reply. In urban areas like New Orleans where folks are packed in like sardines and have little in survival/evacuation skills it's hard to see how their lack of evacuating will lead to anything but rescuers risking their lives later if there is a catastrophic event. OTHO, where folks have more room, evacuation routes and made adequate preparation, they should be able to stay on their own property.

A lot of folks don't know what to expect after a catastrophe: in the case of Katrina--flooding, lack of food or any services. After Rita, where my Sister and Brother-in-law were first responders: the roads were blocked and he ( a sheriff at the time) was turned back at a road block by State Troopers and National Guard troops. No gas, food, services, power lines down, etc. So, even if one survives the disaster, they must be in a position to survive the after effects until services are restored.

How do local authorities assess this? How many rescue personnel have been hurt or lost their life going back for someone that could have left earlier, but decided not to?

On the other hand, I've been in several places where evacuation was order to cover the butt of local leaders. Hurricanes are highly unpredictable. In many cases, vast areas are evacuated and it only hits in a relatively narrow area. That has caused many people to disregard the evacuation order because they've done it many times before only to find it was a false alert.

Lots of considerations.

Best,

Dave

 

[steingar]

Takes a special kind of stupid to to stay behind to protect insured property.

 

[alaskaflyer]

To answer the question, yes they are technically mandatory. Whether someone will be actually arrested is less a matter of settled law (and it is settled) than discretion and politics. Whether they would be convicted is a question for the court.

 

[Doggtyred]

Look at Katrina. From what I saw on the media (and we all know they're never wrong), if I were living in New Orleans in the day or two before Katrina hit I would have gotten the "you're on your own" message loud and clear.

You makes your choices and you takes your chances.

Look at Ike.. The bolivar peninsula residents were told to evacuate or face certain death. Unprecedented language from the NWS in their bulletins.

The land is so low lying, with one coastal highway and a ferry landing at the other end, that you have to leave well in advance of the storm or you are stuck behind washed out roads. One house survived and it wasn't unscathed. They never did find all the missing bodies.

 

[Doggtyred]

After Rita, where my Sister and Brother-in-law were first responders: the roads were blocked and he ( a sheriff at the time) was turned back at a road block by State Troopers and National Guard troops.

So you are saying State law enforcement prevented local emergency personnel from entering an area to provide aid and assistance?

 

[TMetzinger]

So you are saying State law enforcement prevented local emergency personnel from entering an area to provide aid and assistance?

That can and does happen. Just as firefighters prevent family members from running back into a burning building to save their children/pets/beatles albums, the national guard or state authorities may prevent locals, even those with guns/hoses/badges, from going back into a disaster area until the scene commander determines it's safe to do so. I've worked a couple of disasters (OKC, some hotel fires, some earthquakes), and it's a simple calculation - how many people might I save versus how many rescuers (and their gear) might I lose. Simple calculation, horrible decision to have to make. The "disaster manager" (which might be the head of state emergency services, the NG commander, or FEMA, or whoever) has the fun job of making that call.

 

[Pilawt]

In our neck of the woods, in the shadow of Mt. St. Helens, old Harry Truman (not the president) is a legendary figure for his crotchety refusal to leave his lodge at Spirit Lake.

Article from the Seattle P-I: http://www.seattlepi.com/mountsthelens/hary11.shtml

Excerpt:

"He felt, like everyone else, that he would be able to see lava start to ooze down and a news helicopter would come in and scoop him up at the last minute."

Nature had other ideas. The searing blast came at 300 mph.
"One scientist told us Truman probably had time to maybe turn his head," Rosen said.

Moments later, Spirit Lake was buried by landslides and mudflows.

"We figure he's 150 feet under the (present) lake," Rosen said. "His pink Cadillac, 16 cats, everything is buried with him -- along with probably a lot of loot" from the lodge safe.
​

 

[Dave Siciliano]

So you are saying State law enforcement prevented local emergency personnel from entering an area to provide aid and assistance?

It was pretty crazy! Actually, my brother-in-law is pretty easy going and just found a way to go around the road block. Typical stuff, someone had told the folks at the road block no one goes past here <g>. The local sheriff's office was the disaster headquarters for the area and my B-I-L was with them! Having been around for a long time, he know it was just better to avoid the confrontation, tell the sheriff and let him call them which is what he did.

Best,

Dave

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Would this be impossible?

"By order of the county of _____, all property owners must at all times:
a) maintain the grass on any parcel of land they own at a length of 4" or less, anytime that parcel of land is within 200' of any building or other inhabitable structure.
b) maintain a clearway, within 200' of any building or inhabitable structure, free of trees and brush whether they own said buildings or not.
c) any new roof construction, or roof replacement must be of a fire resistant material as listed in Appendix A.
d) any new building construction, any replacement or covering of existing exterior wall material must be of a fire resistant material as listed in App. B

also how about this:

"The insureds understand and accept that the policy will not cover the insureds in the event they have not maintained the surrounding environment and exterior materials as provided by county rule §123.456"

There must be some steps that could be taken to prevent this same disaster from reoccuring in California every few months.

 

[wsuffa]

b) maintain a clearway, within 200' of any building or inhabitable structure, free of trees and brush whether they own said buildings or not.
........
There must be some steps that could be taken to prevent this same disaster from reoccuring in California every few months.

b) is problematic. You generally don't have the right to do anything to brush/trees/etc on a neighbors property unless the plant has branches over you land. The only thing you could do is require conformance up to the property line.

Part of the problem in CA is the same problem that W. Texas has with tumbleweed: there are lots of areas that are not built up and have scrub plants. That's what burns. Add in the winds, and it's hard to control. Most areas are dry enough that grasses dry out.... irrigation to keep it green is a problem due to water conservation measures.

Had a friend who lost his house in the Oakland Hills fire a decade ago. His was the last house on the street that burned. Once the fire got going in the scrub, it caught houses, fences, vegetation, everything in its path on fire.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Would this be impossible?

"By order of the county of _____, all property owners must at all times:[snip]

We're already there. Yearly inspections with fines & fees if the country/city has to clear it for you.
http://www.lafd.org/brush/100feet.htm

Short summary:
grass < 3"
native plants > 18' from structure
trees limbs trimed to atleast 5'.
10' clearance around "combustable fences"

Past 100' keep everything low and resonable without excessive erosion.

Problem is we've built up a lot of dry brush in the wild areas. As best I know, they do not do controlled burns in those areas. They say some parts burning now haven't burned in 30 to over 100 yrs. When 80' flames dump embers miles away the "defensible area" is just that, defensible. Watering one's house before evac or turning programming the sprinklers (located on the roof) only goes so far.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

b) is problematic. You generally don't have the right to do anything to brush/trees/etc on a neighbors property

When I wrote the pseudo rule Bill, I intended it to cover those whose property posed a threat to buildings, so the only problem would be compliance.
I know, we already have enough damn rules....I espouse that theory myself.

Part of the problem in CA is the same problem that W. Texas has with tumbleweed: there are lots of areas that are not built up and have scrub plants. That's what burns.

The suggestion covers that. Provide a clearway around the buildings. The wild areas can burn as much as they want and the only threat is floating embers...which is covered by the construction materials clause. In fact, with proper clearways, they can do controlled burns with no threat to buildings.

The houses are 'in amongst' miles of brush and forest?
The way I see it - we can either start clearing and thinning back from structures, or we can continue to read about deadly and destructive fires each year.