    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     CALIFORNIA FIRES AND THE CONSEQUENCES
                               OF OVERREGULATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                      REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2025

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 119-2

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    58-753                      WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                     ------

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                        REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                       SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                      Member
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
                                             Georgia

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                      JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, February 6, 2025

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
      State of Wisconsin.............................................     1
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
      on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
      from the State of New York.....................................     3
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Steven Greenhut, Resident Senior Fellow, Western Region Director,
      R Street Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................     7
      Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
    Edward Ring, Director Energy and Water Policy, California Policy
      Center
      Oral Testimony.................................................    15
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    17
    Steve Hilton, Founder, Golden Together
      Oral Testimony.................................................    38
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    40
    Frank Frievalt, Director, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) FIRE
      Institute, California Polytechnic State University
      Oral Testimony.................................................    42
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    44

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are
      listed below...................................................    72

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
      Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York,
      for the record
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the
            Honorable Judy Chu from the State of California; the
            Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on
            the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and
            Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin; the Honorable
            Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee of the
            Judiciary from the State of Maryland; and the Honorable
            Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
            Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
            from the State of New York, Feb. 6, 2025, from the
            Honorable Judy Chu from the State of California
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the
            Honorable Judy Chu from the State of California; the
            Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on
            the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and
            Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin; the Honorable
            Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee of the
            Judiciary from the State of Maryland; and the Honorable
            Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
            Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
            from the State of New York, Feb. 4, 2025, from the
            Honorable Brad Sherman from the State of California
    Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Progressive becomes the latest big
            insurer to flee disaster-prone Texas--leaving thousands
            of residents scrambling for protection. What to do if you
            lose coverage,'' Oct. 19, 2024, Moneywise
        An article entitled, ``15 State Facing an Imminent Insurance
            Crisis,'' Oct. 4, 2024, Insurify
        An article entitled, ``Florida, California insurance crisis
            is spreading. Is your state next?'' Jul. 2, 2024, CNBC
        An article entitled, ``More homeowners lose insurance in
            areas hard-hit by climate disasters,'' Jan. 18, 2025,
            Washington Post
        A letter to the Honorable Pete Hegseth, Secretary, Department
            of Defense, Feb. 1, 2025, from the Honorable Jim Costa, a
            Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
            of California
        A letter to the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the
            Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
            Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin, and
            the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, of the Subcommittee on the
            Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
            from the State of New York, Feb. 6, 2025, from the
            California Democratic Congressional Delegation
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
      and Antitrust from the State of California, for the record
        A fact sheet entitled, ``Governor Newsom's fire prevention
            and response efforts.''
        A graphic entitled, ``The insurance industry's solutions were
            tried in Florida and failed to stabilize the market,''
            showing insurance industry changes in the State of
            Florida
        A graphic entitled, ``Over the past 20 years, home insurers
            have done better in California than nationwide,'' showing
            how California home insurers have done better
        A graphic entitled, ``Boardroom Influence: How Insurance
            Professionals Shape R Street Institute.''
    A statement from the National Association of Mutual Insurance
      Companies (NAMIC), Feb. 6, 2025, submitted by the Honorable
      Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
      State of Wisconsin, for the record

            CALIFORNIA FIRES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF OVERREGULATION

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, February 6, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on the Administrative State,

                        Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott
    Fitzgerald [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Jordan, Issa, Cline,
    Gooden, Hageman, Harris, Baumgartner, Nadler, Raskin, Correa,
    Balint, Garcia, Lofgren, and Johnson.
        Also present: Representatives McClintock, Kiley, Biggs,
    Lieu, Swalwell, and Kamlager-Dove.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Subcommittee will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        We welcome everyone to today's hearing on California Fires
    and the Consequences of Overregulation. We have a lot of
    Members that will be waiving on today.
        Without objection, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Biggs,
    Mr. Lieu, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, and Mr. Moskowitz
    will be permitted to participate in today's hearing for the
    purposes of questioning the witnesses if a Member yields them
    time for that purpose.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        Earlier this year, Southern California was hit with tragedy
    as fires exasperated by strong Santa Ana winds engulfed large
    sections of Los Angeles. California Department of Forestry and
    Fire Management reports that the ongoing wildfires have burned
    more than 57,000 acres, destroyed 16,000 structures, and
    tragically caused the death of 28 individuals.
        These fires are not a new occurrence. Wildfires have been
    plaguing Southern California for hundreds of years. Abundant
    forests and shrub land, coupled with the relatively dry climate
    and strong coastal winds, increase the risk and prevalence of
    fires.
        Given the heightened threat environment, one would think
    California would prioritize mitigation efforts to reduce the
    number and the strength of fires. Unfortunately, California
    leaders have insisted and, instead, prioritized often
    counterproductive goals, like planting trees, installing
    electric vehicle charging stations, over-equipping their
    communities and first responders with the tools they need to
    protect their citizens and livelihoods. Unfortunately, this
    thinking has resulted in decades of overregulation and have
    left Californians more vulnerable to wildfires.
        For example, the State's increase of lawsuits brought by
    environmental groups under the California Environmental Quality
    Act, known as CEQA, has delayed proper forest management
    projects such as controlled burns, timber harvesting, or brush
    clearing. It has also given rise to sue-and-settle litigation
    where environmental activists sue regulators for the purposes
    of imposing a friendly settlement agreement.
        Meanwhile, the California Coastal Commission has near
    dictoral powers to approve or deny any project along the 840-
    mile coastline. This muscle was flexed in 2019 when the L.A.
    Department of Water and Power attempted to replace wooden power
    lines in the Pacific Palisades area with steel. They also tried
    to widen fire lanes and install fire-resistant power lines.
        The Coastal Commission put the project to a halt and
    ordered Water and Power to pay a nearly $2 million fine due to
    the discovery of an endangered plant in the vicinity of the
    project. Governor Newsom's--Governor Newsom rightfully waived
    the requirements of the CEQA and the Coastal Act to spare fire
    victims the burdensome permitting and review requirements as
    they rebuild their homes.
        Waiving the requirements exposes the very cumbersome nature
    of these regulations. Contributing to this crisis is the
    elected California State insurance commissioner, who routinely
    has chosen to put artificial price caps on insurance rates.
    This has led to decades of stagnant insurance premiums, as
    they're an obvious political incentive to oppose rate hikes and
    has caused insurers to pause issuing new policies or leave the
    State entirely.
        It has also caused more reliance on the State's insurers of
    the last resort, the California FAIR Plan. According to the Los
    Angeles Times and insurance companies that are leaving the
    State, the FAIR Plan has been seen as a policy that could count
    and grow for as little as 200,000 in 2020 to more than 450,000
    as of September 2024.
        Taking together, these regulations have fueled the
    frequency and strength of wildfires in California. State and
    local leaders have also deprioritized fire prevention in their
    budgets. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, for example, approved a budget
    for 2024 that cut more than 17 million from the L.A. Fire
    Department. Governor Newsom, similarly, reduced funding for
    numerous fire safety and prevention programs in the State
    budget, including 101 million reductions for wildfire and fire
    resilience programs. I'm sure you can buy a lot of EV charging
    stations for $100 million.
        Today, we will hear from a panel of experts who have been
    preaching for years to stop appeasing the environmental
    activists and begin implementing adequate water and forest
    management policies. It's my hope that these witnesses will be
    prepared to offer recommendations that State and Federal
    lawmakers may use to protect California from future fires. With
    the absent of real regulatory reform in the State, I fear
    history is tragically bound to repeat itself.
        I now recognize Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to congratulate
    you on becoming Chair of this Subcommittee. While I am sure
    that we will have many disagreements, beginning with today's
    hearing, I do look forward to working with you and to finding
    areas of common ground.
        Mr. Chair, while tens of thousands of Californians are
    still reeling from the fires that forced them to evacuate and
    that destroyed their homes and their livelihoods, Republicans
    are exploiting this crisis with a hearing that does nothing
    more than provide a sad excuse to further their long-held goal
    of dismantling the regulations that keep us safe.
        Rather than face the undeniable facts of climate change and
    the need for urgent, unfettered Federal assistance to help
    Californians rebuild their lives, Republicans want to change
    the subject. We should begin by remembering the tens of
    thousands of people whose lives have been upended by this
    disaster.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Nadler. The devastation wrought by these fires is
    unimaginable, and the only question we should be asking now is
    how we can help the people of California recover. Despite the
    heroism of first responders and plentiful water access--all but
    one small reservoir closed for maintenance--the fires
    tragically destroyed acres on acres of homes and communities.
        Instead of responding to this tragedy with open hearts,
    Republicans, led by President Trump and his unelected co-
    president, Elon Musk, have resorted to a flurry of baseless
    accusations and scurrilous misinformation seeking to blame
    California's Democratic elected officials. When they claim to
    be helping the situation, they've actually done more harm than
    good.
        For example, President Trump has falsely argued that
    environmental protection policies left Southern California
    without sufficient water to fight the wildfires, despite clear
    evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, he ordered the release
    of over two billion gallons of water in the Central Valley,
    purportedly to support his unsubstantiated claims. The
    President claimed that the water was, quote, ``heading to
    farmers throughout the State and to Los Angeles.'' This
    critical agriculture resource desperately needed by
    California's farmers for the spring was instead, due to the
    President's actions, diverted into the Pacific Ocean, 100 miles
    away from Los Angeles.
        California does not need political photo ops that waste
    desperately needed water. They need real Federal assistance.
    How does the President respond? By insisting that any Federal
    aid come with strings attached that further his own political
    agenda, like voter ID laws. Never mind that California already
    has voter ID laws, but the President wants to play politics
    rather than help those in need.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Nadler. That is outrageous. It is outrageous that
    Republicans in Congress, including Speaker Johnson, have
    indicated that they are open to placing conditions on disaster
    aid, especially ones that have nothing to do with wildfires.
    Not only is that wrong for California, but it is simply wrong
    to treat the citizens of any State as pawns in a political
    game.
        Natural disasters tragically affect millions of Americans
    across the country each year. As FEMA's website explains, its
    purpose is, quote, ``to help people before, during, and after
    disasters.'' To help people, all people. It is not there to
    help just the Republicans or just the Democrats or to promote
    partisan objectives. It has always been and should always
    remain strictly neutral in its work.
        The Members should be careful before they consider
    attaching political strings to the Federal funds needed to
    recover from natural disasters. If it can happen to California,
    it can happen to your State too.
        In 2024 alone, the States my colleagues across the aisle
    represent collectively had 122 extreme weather events that
    necessitated FEMA assistance. The 122 extreme weather events
    made worse and made more frequent by the realities of climate
    change that the majority still will not acknowledge.
        Imagine if then-President Biden had conditioned necessary
    FEMA disaster recovery funds on strings that they're no
    relation to the disasters their constituents are still
    recovering from. They would have been outraged, justifiably.
    Today, they remain silent.
        Today, instead of letting California recover from the
    blazes that were contained only five days ago and to take stock
    of how to rebuild, the majority is leveraging the pain and
    suffering of Americans to push a message of deregulation over
    all else. Instead of supporting our fellow Americans as they
    pick up the pieces, instead of ensuring that our neighbors have
    the resources they need to recover from this disaster, instead
    of working to slow the devastating effects of climate change
    that affect us all, Republicans will return to their tired old
    playbook and blame everything on overregulation.
        Today we are fortunate to be joined by Frank Frievalt, a
    retired Fire Chief with actual experience on the ground
    fighting fires and saving lives. I'm looking forward to hearing
    from a true expert on how we can best help California in its
    hours of need.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
    Jordan, for his opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Ranking Member started off his comments by saying that
    Republicans wanted to dismantle the regulations that keep us
    safe. That keep us safe? Twenty-eight Californians lost their
    lives, 20,000 structures were destroyed, 40,000 acres where
    these fires took place, and California is the most heavily
    regulated State in the country.
        We're trying to figure out how we can stop this. This is
    not about dismantling--if regulations were going to solve the
    problem, they'd have been solved--everything would have been
    solved in California because you got more regulations than any
    other place.
        So, I appreciate the Chair bringing experts in here to tell
    us what's really going on. I appreciate this hearing.
        Oh, to be clear, the clip that was shown by Ranking Member
    Nadler of President Trump was before the fires. It was clear
    back in September, for goodness' sake.
        We're going to get to the truth with our witnesses. I want
    to thank the Chair for this important hearing about regulatory
    reform that really needs to happen, and we want to make sure
    the regulations that are in California don't come to the rest
    of the country because we don't want this happening all over
    our great Nation.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, all other opening statements will be
    included in the record.
        We will now introduce today's witnesses, and I recognize
    the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, for that purpose.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We are fortunate to have with us today witnesses who know
    as well as anyone what has gone so wrong in my State, what has
    gone so wrong in the Golden State. They will share with us the
    titanic policy blunders and staggering failures of political
    leadership that have caused such harm to California and for
    which our citizens have paid such a high price.
        I believe that today's hearing can be a moment where we
    turn the tide and restore some sanity to California fire and
    water policy while issuing a warning to the rest of the country
    about the devastating consequences of these failed policies. As
    President Trump said, ``there can be no Golden Age without the
    Golden State.''
        Our first witness is Steve Hilton. Now, most probably know
    Mr. Hilton as a British and American commentator for, among
    other outlets, FOX News. He actually, back in 2010-2012, was
    the Director of Strategy for British Prime Minister David
    Cameron, and he has now brought his unique mix of brilliant
    strategy, passion, and commonsense approach to policy to found
    a nonprofit organization called Golden Together, which focuses
    on fixing the problems that are causing a mass exodus of people
    from the State of California. That mass exodus, by the way, is
    measurable.
        For five straight years, California has ranked No. 1 in the
    country in outbound U-Haul rentals. The greatest State in the
    country, the most beautiful State in the country has become the
    most popular State to leave.
        Mr. Hilton's testimony will cover the failures in
    leadership that have led to the lack of preparation for the
    fires in Los Angeles.
        Our second witness is someone who many of us in California
    know very well and whose insights we have been relying on for a
    long time. Mr. Steven Greenhut is a resident Senior Fellow and
    Western Region Director for State Affairs at R Street
    Institute. He was a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune
    who focused on California policy and State government. He
    authored the book, ``Winning the Water Wars: California can
    meet its water needs by promoting abundance rather than
    managing scarcity.''
        His testimony will identify many areas in which policy
    promises in California were made with no follow-through from
    California leaders. As a California resident, he can speak to
    the personal impact many of these policy decisions have had on
    him and his family.
        Finally, Mr. Edward Ring, who is perhaps as knowledgeable
    about water and fire policy in California as just about anyone.
    Dr. Ring is the Director of Water and Energy Policy for the
    California Policy Center. He has a deep tactical knowledge of
    the poor decisionmaking of environmentalist California
    policymakers. He will speak directly to the prolonged
    environmental review process and the meddling of environmental
    groups that prevent proper fire mitigation and water management
    from happening in California.
        Lest anyone think that the purpose of this hearing is
    simply to identify problems rather than present solutions, I'd
    encourage you to check out Dr. Ring's written testimony in
    which he has literally dozens and dozens of concrete policy
    changes that California could make right now to improve the
    situation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this important hearing.
    I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, to
    introduce the Democrat witness.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Before I introduce our witness, I must take strong
    exception to what Mr. Kiley said when he said, ``California is
    the most beautiful State in the Union.'' Obviously, New York is
    the most beautiful State in the Union.
        Chief Frievalt has served since 1979 with special district,
    city, county, State, and Federal fire agencies, and rose from
    firefighter to fire chief. He holds an MS from Oklahoma State
    University in fire and emergency management administration and
    currently serves as the Director of the Wildland-Urban
    Interface Fire Institute at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.
        Frank is an SME for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
    Wildfire Advisory Council and previously served as a Senior
    Policy Advisor to the Western Fire Chiefs Association, with an
    emphasis on the development of resilient wildland-urban
    interface communities. His work is grounded in aligning key
    stakeholders around a core set of parcel and community-level
    mitigations that will disrupt the fire pathways which lead to
    conflagration. He's pursuing actuarial evaluation of risk
    mitigations for both the public and private sectors because we
    share the same desired outcome: Minimizing property loss to the
    peril of wildfire.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        We want to welcome the witnesses and certainly thank you
    for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in.
        Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative.
        Thank you, and you can be seated.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in five minutes today.
        Mr. Greenhut, you may begin.

                      STATEMENT OF STEVEN GREENHUT

        Mr. Greenhut. Thank you.
        Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and the Members of
    the Subcommittee, my name is Steven Greenhut. I'm Western
    Region Director for the R Street Institute, a free-market think
    tank, and have written extensively about California issues for
    newspapers and books for the past 27 years. I love the State
    and want to see it prosper.
        One of the common themes in my writing has been the State's
    commitment to expanding bureaucracy and regulation without much
    regard for whether the new programs accomplish their stated
    goals. The Los Angeles wildfires have exposed festering
    regulatory hurdles that have exacerbated the crisis. Many are
    years in the making, maddeningly complex, and not given to
    quick solutions. It's a confluence of bad policy involving
    brush clearance, water, insurance, firefighting, housing, and
    climate change.
        California has created a tangled web of regulation that
    renders this once innovative State incapable of accomplishing
    anything efficiently, even environmental protection. Consider
    California's extensive climate change agenda. Instead of
    building a resilient system that handles whatever Mother Nature
    throws our way, our State constantly uses it as an excuse for
    inaction on nuts-and-bolts issues.
        By the way, uncontrolled wildfires undermine whatever
    progress we're making in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The
    University of Chicago research found that the 2020 wildfires
    emitted close to double the State's emissions reductions
    achieved over 16 years. The Governor has agreed that we need to
    step up brush clearance, but very little happens.
        The California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and other
    laws require environmental impact reports for clearance
    projects and 2-3 approvals for controlled burns. They can take
    years. The State could, for instance, consider using more funds
    from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to pay for this rather
    than prioritizing a high-speed rail system that's unlikely to
    do much about the climate. It's always an issue of priorities.
        The wildfires have also highlighted California's
    counterproductive insurance regulations. I've been writing for
    years about the coming insurance catastrophe. It can take many
    months, close to a year, for insurers to wade through the
    process of hearings, rate reviews, and opposition to such hikes
    by consumer attorney interveners who earn large fees for their
    efforts.
        The problem goes back to Proposition 103, the 1988 ballot
    initiative that instituted the prior approval system for rate
    increases and rolled back rates. It created a price control
    system. Unable to easily adjust rates to reflect risk, insurers
    quietly and then not so quietly began exiting.
        The insurance commissioner crafted a suite of useful
    reforms that were showing some promise, but why did it take so
    long? With this catastrophic wildfire, it remains to be seen
    whether these changes will be enough to stop the continued
    exodus of insurers.
        Many homeowners in the L.A. area didn't have coverage or
    were relying on the State-created insurer of last resort, the
    FAIR Plan, and there's much talk of that barebones system
    facing possible insolvency. Rather than addressing the
    insurance emergency, the Governor and lawmakers found time for
    a performative special legislative session about so-called oil
    industry price gouging. Again, it's about priorities.
        Water policy is a tangential issue related to wildfires,
    but California has built little new water infrastructure since
    the seventies when the population was roughly half what it is
    today. The State passed a major water bond a decade ago, but
    we've seen little progress on building traditional
    infrastructure projects.
        The California Coastal Commission in 2022 even rejected a
    privately funded desalination plan in Huntington Beach over
    concerns about plankton. More water would not have stopped the
    wildfires, but additional water resources would bolster
    firefighting efforts and mitigate some of the effects of
    drought seasons.
        Instead of building the basic water infrastructure
    prioritized under the Pat Brown Administration, recent
    administrations have focused almost solely on conservation and
    rationing. Yet, approximately 50 percent of California's water
    flows to the Pacific, 40 percent is used for agriculture, and
    10 percent is for urban uses. Limiting swimming pools and car
    washing is no solution.
        We've seen criticisms about the inadequate number of
    firefighters. Thanks to union power, we see abundance of L.A.
    firefighters earning total compensation packages above $500,000
    a year, with one captain earning more than $900,000 a year. If
    pay reflected market rates, California's State government and
    municipalities could afford to hire more of them.
        Finally, I want to touch on California's cumbersome
    building regulations, which are a notable hurdle in the
    rebuilding process. Thankfully, the Governor issued an
    Executive Order suspending CEQA and the Coastal Act. Why has it
    taken disaster? State officials have relaxed some rules for
    arenas and high-density housing but not in a far-reaching
    manner. Little by little, California has built up a massive
    administrative State.
        I'm hoping the heartbreaking nature of the wildfires will
    finally cause State officials to rethink this failed approach.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Greenhut follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Greenhut.
        Mr. Ring, you may begin.

                        STATEMENT OF EDWARD RING

        Mr. Ring. Thank you.
        Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, Chair Fitzgerald,
    Ranking Member Raskin, and the Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the invitation to appear today to testify
    regarding California fires and the consequences of
    overregulation.
        My name is Edward Ring, and I'm the Director of Energy and
    Water Policy for the California Policy Center, a nonpartisan
    public policy research institute. My observations over the past
    decade have led me to the conclusion that many of you may
    share: Overregulation over at least the past--excuse me--
    overregulation in California has made the State unaffordable to
    middle-class and low-income families. It has also endangered
    our lives, our homes, and our communities, and has harmed the
    environment at least as much as it has helped.
        Today's hearing centers on the consequences of
    overregulation in California with a specific focus on the
    recent and catastrophic wildfires that consumed thousands of
    homes in Los Angeles and cost many lives. While no amount of
    preventive measures or properly applied firefighting resources
    can stop all of the wildfires in our State, their frequency and
    their severity is a consequence of overregulation. The
    regulations most damaging to our forests are, ironically,
    justified by misguided environmentalist values.
        Because of environmentalist regulations and litigation
    pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the
    California Endangered Species Act, and their Federal
    equivalents, California's annual timber harvest is down to 1.5
    billion board feet a year, 25 percent of what it was as
    recently as the 1980s. These and other environmental laws have
    nearly killed our logging industry while also making it much
    harder to do prescribed burns or graze. These forests are dried
    out, unhealthy, because there are now at least three times as
    many trees--at least three times as many trees per acre than
    the natural density, competing for limited light, water, and
    soil nutrients. There is an alternative.
        For example, in 2020, the Creek Fire burned 380,000 acres
    in the Central Sierra Mountains, but 20,000 acres in the middle
    of that fire, the watershed around Shaver Lake, didn't burn at
    all. That's because for several decades the owners practiced
    what they call total ecosystem management. They used prescribed
    burns, mechanical thinning, grazing, and selective logging to
    manage their forest. Wildlife biologists who were onsite
    claimed that specie counts in the area actually exceed levels
    found in forests where State regulations have banned logging.
        These practices need to be extended to all wildland in
    California. In the wildland-urban interface, Los Angeles in
    particular, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ought to
    completely reprioritize their actions to first ensure reducing
    fire risk. California is only five percent urbanized, and that
    is where 94 percent of our State's population lives. We have
    the most densely populated urban areas of any State in America.
        The point here is that our State has plenty of open space
    and wilderness. Going to extreme lengths to return ecosystems
    to an untouched natural State is not appropriate along the
    perimeter of the city with 10 million people. In any case, our
    government at all levels has not outperformed private
    landowners in preserving habitat.
        The California State government has enacted regulations and
    enabled litigation that rewards special interests, while
    costing taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Environmental regulations make housing unaffordable, leaving
    subsidized developers to inadequately fulfill a mission that
    the private sector can do. We pay higher utility rates to
    subsidize renewables. We have carbon sequestration, carbon
    offset trading, and carbon accounting. We have environmental
    litigation as a business model. Entire new industries created
    by political decree producing nothing of value.
        This disaster in Los Angeles is a clarifying moment. The
    leaders running California today can allow a deregulated
    private sector to create millions of good jobs delivering
    abundant energy, water, lumber, and housing, including
    rebuilding the lost homes in Los Angeles at a price normal
    people can afford, or we can ration our water, energy, and land
    expecting the government to subsidize millions of households
    that can no longer afford the essentials. We can manage our
    environment and expand our suburbs, redefining what constitutes
    a reasonable environmental impact, or we can retreat into high-
    density urban cores and pretend the entire Earth should be
    turned back over to nature.
        I am including in my written testimony a list of laws that
    should be repealed, regulations that should be scrapped, and
    strategies whereby California, hopefully with the help from the
    Federal Government, can save our State.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ring follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
        Mr. Hilton, you may begin.

                       STATEMENT OF STEVE HILTON

        Mr. Hilton. Thank you very much.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and all your colleagues,
    for giving me the opportunity to be here today. My comments
    reflect both the policy work that I've done that Mr. Kiley
    mentioned at my organization, Golden Together, specifically two
    reports which I'd like to draw your attention to: First,
    reducing California's carbon emissions through modern forest
    management, and, second, water abundance. My comments also
    reflect more recent conversations with firefighters in Los
    Angeles, retired firefighters across the State, and the victims
    of this disaster.
        I have to say to the Ranking Member, those victims will be
    offended by the remarks we just heard, which were, frankly,
    outrageous and offensive, preposterously claiming that the
    regulations keep us safe. It is the regulations that put
    Californians in danger, as we have all been highlighting.
        It's described sometimes, this disaster, as a natural
    disaster. It is not a natural disaster. This was a man-made
    disaster, more precisely a Democrat-made disaster. That is not
    hyperbole. That is the only plausible explanation for the
    impact here. We are still waiting, of course, to understand the
    ignition, what precisely ignited these fires. The impact,
    there's no question that it was the direct result of Democrat
    policy and Democrat appointments to the bureaucracies who
    implemented those policies.
        As we've been hearing, fire is a natural part of life in
    these areas that burned. That is not new. We have had fires for
    decades. We have had fire prevention for decades. In the last
    two decades, that kind of sensible fire prevention was blocked
    by Democrat policy.
        We have heard a lot, as we've watched these disasters
    unfold, about containment. What does containment mean? It
    doesn't mean putting out the fires. It means clearing the
    perimeter, fuel management, and fire prevention. That is what's
    actually happening, bulldozers and firefighters with axes.
        There's a simple question. We can do that before these fire
    disasters, or we can do it after. The choice that Democrats
    have made is to force it to be done by our brave firefighters
    after the event instead of preventively beforehand.
        Let's be specific. There is an article in The New York
    Times about Phillip and Claire Vogt, who designed and built one
    of the most fire-resistant homes in America on a peak in the
    Santa Monica Mountains.

            For months, Phillip had been volunteering to clear away the
            dead undergrowth on the parkland surrounding his property, but
            California officials told him he could be fined for meddling
            with a sensitive habitat.

    Who are these California officials? No. 1, CARB, the California
    Air Resources Board. In 2000, they issued new smoke management
    regulations that effectively prohibited the controlled burns
    that were the norm for decades before.
        As we were hearing, the California Coastal Commission
    prohibits sensible fire prevention measures to save Braunton's
    milkvetch shrub which they claim is endangered. Worst of all,
    as we were hearing, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy,
    every single firefighter that I spoke to in Los Angeles said,
    ``What are these people doing stopping us from taking the
    sensible steps to keep our communities safe?''
        This is the direct result of overregulation. I could go on.
    In 2020, the State Senate bill in the California legislature,
    SB-182, would have mandated fire prevention and resilience,
    including evacuation routes, vegetation management, fire safe
    construction. It was vetoed by Governor Newsom. Here is a quote
    from his veto letter, ``It fails to account for the
    consequences that could increase sprawl.''
        So, yet again, you have sensible fire prevention blocked by
    overregulation because of ideology about the war on single-
    family homes that's being waged in California, on and on. Every
    single aspect of this disaster, the failures that led up to it,
    the failures of response, all of it the result of Democrat
    policy. Who else is there to blame? Who else has been in charge
    in Los Angeles and across the State of California in these
    years?
        Now we have some demands. We have demands from the people
    affected who never want to see this happen again. No. 1, any
    support from Congress for what's happened must include a
    requirement for their sensible reforms, the common sense
    measures that we have outlined here and is in the policy
    reports that we put before you.
        Safeguards to make sure this money, the Federal money is
    spent properly, any money. Just as we saw with the 9/11 victim
    compensation, we need a special master appointed to make sure
    that money is not wasted.
        Finally, there is a bill on the desk of Governor Newsom
    right now for Trump-proofing California, even as he goes to the
    office and begs for help for his State. Surely, a condition of
    any support must be for--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Hilton? Mr. Hilton?
        Mr. Hilton. --Governor Newsom to veto that bill.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hilton follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Hilton, thank you. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Frievalt, you may begin.

                      STATEMENT OF FRANK FRIEVALT

        Mr. Frievalt. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My
    name is Frank Frievalt. I'm the current Director of the
    Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Institute at Cal Poly, San Luis
    Obispo. My opinions today are mine. They don't necessarily
    represent the CSU system.
        To the experience and education that was covered initially,
    I'd like to add that, of my time serving in the fire service,
    19 of those years were in California, 24 of those years were
    outside of California. I think this will be important as we
    look at--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Frievalt, can you speak up just a
    little bit, please?
        Mr. Nadler. Make sure your mike's on.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The mike's on.
        Mr. Frievalt. Is that better? Very good. My apologies. I'm
    a soft talker.
        As I said, my name is Frank Frievalt. I am the Wildland-
    Urban Interface Fire Institute Director at Cal Poly, San Luis
    Obispo. My comments today are mine. They do not necessarily
    represent those of the CSU, California State University.
        My experience that was discussed earlier, I want to make
    clear that about half of that has been inside California and
    about half of it has been outside of California. Additionally,
    the comments that I'll make are informed around my service on
    the Western Fire Chiefs Association, which represents the
    States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
    Nevada, and Oregon. I also have a multistate mitigation
    alignment project underway that mitigations for wildland-urban
    interface properties that involves California, Oregon,
    Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, and Arizona.
        We are setting out really to solve two problems. The first
    is unacceptable levels of life and property loss in the
    wildland-urban interface. When we talk about interface, just
    like we have oceans and land connecting at the coastline, think
    of the interface as where combustible vegetation meets urban
    centers. So, when we say interface, that's really the intent.
        The second thing that we are solving is an impending
    national financial crisis that will cascade from the insurance
    market to the realty, mortgage lending, and general obligation
    municipal bond markets, in my opinion.
        There is, understandably, a lot of polarization on this
    issue. What I can tell you from my time working in the field on
    these types of disasters is that we need to reframe how we
    approach this going forward, and I would suggest we do it in
    the following ways.
        First, this is an urban conflagration problem. It is not a
    wildfire problem. It starts as a wildfire problem through
    embers entering communities and the reception of those
    communities on buildings. This is well-understood through Jack
    Cohen's work.
        Second, this is a national problem. It is not just a
    California problem. Lahaina, Hawaii, the Marshall Fire in
    Colorado, Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire in New Mexico. This one
    usually surprises people unless they lived back there--or here,
    the Gatlinburg fires from 2016. The 2,460 structures and 17,000
    acres. You don't normally think about that happening there.
        It's not just here. Essentially, if you look at the globe,
    30 degrees North and South of the Equator, Spain, Greece,
    Chile, Australia, and New Zealand, this is not just our issue.
    Unfortunately, we could learn from those as well.
        Another reframing is that, while climate accelerated this
    issue, it's really just two of the three primary issues.
        First, an accumulation of fuel since roughly 1910 due to
    national policy that made sense at the time and led to
    unintended consequences.
        Second, continued development into fire-dependent
    landscapes. These landscapes have a return interval that needs
    to be met.
        Third, while this issue has State and Federal consequences,
    it is always a local government issue. Unless we reframe our
    approach to the questions and the answers looking forward into
    what's coming versus looking backward into what has happened,
    we're going to continue to pursue things that are not going to
    be relevant to changing toward the outcomes that we need.
        I give you three things that I think we should commit to:
        First, is we need to prioritize selective management of
    combustible vegetation within one-half mile of wildland-urban
    interface communities above all other vegetation management
    actions. It's not to their exclusion, but it's that we need to
    prioritize those bases.
        Second, we need to retroactively harden existing structures
    in wildland-urban interface communities through evidence-based
    mitigations and create and maintain defensible space around
    those structures. To clarify, mitigations mean the various
    actions that you can take to make these structures less
    receptive, first and foremost, to embers and later to
    structure-to-structure spread.
        Third, we need to require that the evidence-based
    mitigations are included in the part of the actuarial pricing
    of risk and insurance rate setting. We know enough now about
    those relative contributions to the disruption of fire pathways
    to understand their value.
        I'll end with, the first time I understood we had a serious
    disconnect was that I had some property owners that passed our
    defensible space inspection brilliantly and had a nonrenewable
    before the week was up. I realized at that point how the fire
    service and how the insurance industries were looking at the
    same place were not connected. That's where I think we need to
    go to.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Frievalt follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Frievalt.
        We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with
    questions. The Chair recognizes myself for a number of
    questions starting out.
        The tragedy of recent fires in Los Angeles was undoubtedly
    made worse by some of the policies that make it impossible for
    California to manage long-standing fire risks inherent to the
    State.
        So, Mr. Ring, let me start with you. Why do you think there
    is such a resistance to these commonsense approaches that many
    have just heard about this morning and certainly have been
    hearing about since the fires happened in L.A.?
        Mr. Ring. I can't think of a harder question to answer. I
    find it inexplicable. I do think that some of the motivation
    for litigation, for example, that we see against sensible
    wildland management is an economic motive. Again, the
    regulatory and legal environment, because of these laws, are
    such that it's very easy to file a lawsuit to try to break any
    project that's going to develop land or manage wildland. So, I
    think a lot of it would have to do with that.
        Also, that there is a preoccupation with climate change
    that sort of diverts people from looking at, I think what Steve
    referred to as, ``the nuts and bolts.'' If you're concerned--
    truly concerned about climate change, you would want to pursue
    sensible policies with more urgency, not less.
        It's partly ideology and it's partly some perverse
    incentives caused by the legal environment that we've created.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. So, what could the Federal Government do?
    What kind of steps could we take to ensure that all States,
    including California, have less roadblocks to mitigate?
        Mr. Ring. An act of Congress could, for example, make
    losers pay in frivolous lawsuits that have to do with
    environmental issues. That would be a reform that would cut
    across every law or regulation that's being exploited
    currently.
        Whereas, if you, for example, reform the Endangered Species
    Act, which is also necessary, and reforming NEPA is also
    necessary, but if you also assign responsibility to litigants
    that file frivolous lawsuits, you would take care of every
    regulation that's being exploited in that manner.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Do you think there's anything that we're
    seeing and experiencing with the fires in California that would
    lead you to maybe scrutinize some of the statutes at the State
    level in other States that also experience forest fires,
    wildfires that California just experienced that makes sense,
    that there is a State to look toward maybe fine-tuning what's
    going on in California?
        Mr. Ring. Well, I can say that in California it would
    probably be helpful to take away the waivers that permit
    California to enact all kinds of laws that go well in excess of
    Federal regulations.
        As far as an example of a State that's managing their
    wildlands more responsibly, I can't answer that with specific
    knowledge. I think that in the Southeastern United States a lot
    of forest management is done in a way that makes a lot more
    sense.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Greenhut, let me ask you. Many States require the State
    insurance commissioner to approve a rate increase before it
    takes effect. The fast rate approvals are a crucial component
    of healthy State insurance markets. Many of us that served in
    State legislature worked in that area.
        Is there something that you're seeing that stands out when
    it comes to California that's lacking in this area, or are some
    of the moves or changes that have been made as a result of
    trying to better position themselves and, unfortunately,
    failing when it comes to insurance rates?
        Mr. Greenhut. There are about 12 States with prior approval
    systems, and California's is the strictest. You pointed out in
    your opening that--well, for one thing, it made the insurance
    commissioner an elected position. There aren't a lot of
    insurance commissioners often are looking to higher office who
    want to be the person who approved a major rate hike, and the
    problem is this has been going on for years. We're not able to
    just adjust the rates in the process.
        There are things that could be done within the Prop 103
    process. We could speed up the rate approval process, and
    California is notoriously slow for that. It's supposed to by
    the initiative, these rate reviews are supposed to take place
    within 60-180 days. The average is somewhere like 293 days.
        Then, there's one example. We have these intervenors who
    are consumer attorneys. Consumer Watchdog is one of them, and
    their predecessor group wrote the initiative. They earn
    substantial fees, essentially, opposing any sort of rate
    increase and that just drags it out.
        There's one example--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. We'll have an opportunity to talk a little
    bit further on that issue.
        Mr. Greenhut. Sure.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I'm going to yield back.
        I'm going to recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chair.
        I first must respond to Mr. Hilton's inflammatory comments
    on my statement. Rules that prevent people's roofs from
    burning, rules that get rid of inflammatory material around
    homes, rules that mean that the house next door is less of a
    fire threat to your own, these are rules that save lives.
    Blanket deregulation would heighten fire risk, not lower it.
        We have heard claims from Republicans, including President
    Trump, that the water systems in California were strained
    because of overregulation. With the exception of one small
    reservoir that was down for scheduled maintenance, the
    reservoirs were full when the fires started.
        According to some estimates, when the Palisades Fire
    started, there were three million gallons of water stored
    locally. The demand to fight the fires was four times greater
    than the system had ever encountered.
        The widespread and simultaneous use of hydrants across the
    affected area did cause water pressure to drop. As experts have
    explained,

            Hydrants are designed for fighting fires at one or two houses
            at a time, not hundreds.

    As one expert in the field observed,

            We have really no lack of water. What we have is an
            infrastructure that is not made to fight cataclysmic fires,
            biblical-sized fires.

        Director Frievalt, for these large-scale urban fires like
    ones in Eaton and Palisades, would you say that these are once-
    in-a-career fires?
        Mr. Frievalt. Thank you for the question.
        Initially, when it started, maybe. We can look at--you have
    plenty of access to the history and records and severity of
    Wildland-Urban Interface Fire institutes--or incidents. They're
    certainly on the rise.
        I would also mention that, to date, our largest acreage,
    life and property losses actually occurred a long time ago.
    First, at least it was recorded in this way, 1871 in Peshtigo,
    Wisconsin. That was burned somewhere between 1.5-2.4 million
    acres; between 1,200-2,500 people were killed. It jumped Green
    Bay. Sixteen towns were burned in that process.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I have one other question. After
    large fires like these, we should be doing everything we can to
    help people in need, not point fingers and trying to blame
    elected leaders.
        You made a number of recommendations, but what would be
    most helpful to the people of California during this difficult
    time?
        Mr. Frievalt. Well, right now, we need to focus on the
    recovery part, for sure. As we move forward--I'll go back to
    the three concurrent integrated actions that I mentioned in my
    opening statement--we have to prioritize selective management
    of fuel treatment immediately around wildland-urban interface
    communities, we need to retroactively harden the existing
    inventory of structures, and we need to require evidence-based
    mitigations be included in the pricing of risk.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Lieu, who can speak of the devastation and the
    need for disaster relief funds.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Ranking Member Nadler, for yielding
    your time. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, for letting me attend.
        Mr. Hilton, are you a firefighter?
        Mr. Hilton. I'm not a firefighter, but I--
        Mr. Lieu. Mr. Ring, are you a firefighter? Mr. Ring?
        It's just a yes-or-no question. Mr. Ring, are you a
    firefighter?
        Mr. Ring. No.
        Mr. Lieu. All right. Mr. Greenhut, are you a firefighter?
        Mr. Greenhut. I'm not a firefighter.
        Mr. Hilton. Are you a firefighter?
        Mr. Lieu. The Northern part of my district was evacuated.
    I've talked to numerous firefighters. I've visited the
    intensive damage. I've had multiple briefings from the
    firefighters, first responders, and fire chiefs. This is what
    they told me: The reason these fires in Southern California
    spread so quickly, caused so much damage was because of Santa
    Ana winds that reached unprecedented gusts of a hundred miles
    per hour, gusts so high the helicopters and the airplanes could
    not fly; also because of very low relative humidity and the
    driest conditions in California history.
        None of the firefighters said it was about overregulation,
    homeless people, the delta smelt fish, the timber harvests, or
    voter ID laws. So, shame on anyone who is exploiting the pain
    and suffering of disaster victims to jam through partisan
    ideological policies.
        We should get disaster aid to these disaster victims now,
    without conditions, just like we treat every other disaster
    victim across America. We just gave aid this past December to
    South Carolina, Florida, and Oklahoma. The Democrats say,
    ``hey, we want you to do better on climate change policies in
    your State.'' No. We just gave that aid because these are
    Americans who are suffering. So, do not exploit them.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        The Ranking Member has a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Since the majority is having this hearing on California
    fires without the participation of Members who represent the
    Palisades and Eaton, I seek unanimous consent to enter
    statements from Representatives Chu and Sherman into the
    record.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. We now recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We're all here trying to learn more about how to prevent
    these situations from developing in the future. I want to just,
    first, thank all of you for being on the panel today and
    sharing. I want to address a question to Mr. Steven Greenhut,
    if I may.
        Recently, areas in my own home State of North Carolina that
    were devastated by Hurricane Helene are now dealing with
    wildfires ourselves. Unfortunately, in the last couple of
    weeks, the aftermath of the storm's destruction has been
    providing fuel for these fires.
        I want to talk for a moment about the concept of utilizing
    controlled burns to mitigate wildfires. I know there are
    prescribed burn projects that happened in my district, and I
    think it's important that they continue. It is my understanding
    that implementing prescribed burns has become more difficult
    due to the regulations in California.
        Mr. Greenhut, are there significant barriers that exist in
    California to exercising these prescribed burns, and, if so,
    what are they?
        Mr. Greenhut. Yes. The California Environmental Quality
    Act, which continues to come up, CEQA, it just imposes enormous
    hurdles and delays in doing any sort of projects. So, when we
    had these horrific wildfires up in Paradise, Butte County,
    after the fires, it took two years before the county was even
    able to let out contracts for brush clearance. There was a
    previous fire where it took 18 months, I believe, to get an
    CEQA approval to do some brush clearance, and the community was
    destroyed shortly thereafter. So, CEQA is a huge hurdle for
    everything.
        One of the points about CEQA, we hear a lot that, oh, we
    need these regulations to protect the environment. The CEQA
    delays and lawsuit process doesn't help the environment.
        I was just looking up, 49 percent of lawsuits, CEQA
    lawsuits, are public projects. Many of them are environmental
    projects, including parks, university housing, and renewable
    energy. Eighty percent of them are infill projects, which are
    lot of people in California say we need more of those to deal
    with climate change. Yet, the lawsuits target those projects.
        Sixty-Four percent of the lawsuits are from associations,
    such as unions, without having--which don't have a history of
    environmental activism. In other words, they use them to secure
    wage concessions.
        So, is this helping the environment? If we're slowing
    prescribed burns and brush clearance, and we've done very
    little--we're supposed to do about, according to CAL FIRE,
    about a million acres of clearance a year on Federal and State
    land and have been doing around 125,000 acres a year, and the
    Governor said, ``we need to do more of it.'' It's just we
    haven't seen more of it and so, yes.
        Mr. Harris. Well, and that was going to be a followup
    question. I understand that Governor Newsom publicly committed
    to step up the rate of mechanical thinning and prescribed burns
    to clean up the excessive fuel in the forest.
        Again, I'll just ask you, has Governor Newsom followed
    through on that commitment at this point?
        Mr. Greenhut. Well, I agree with what he's saying needs to
    be done. What I'm looking at is that we have all these
    bureaucratic hurdles. So, even if a Governor issues an
    Executive Order, everything still gets just gummed up in the
    works. That's what I want to address is some of these long-term
    regulatory issues, not the short-term partisan issues.
        Mr. Harris. Well, let me ask you this. I want you to use
    the balance of the time.
        If you were in charge of setting policy related to forest
    management and prescribed burns, what changes would you make?
        Mr. Greenhut. Well, I think the focus, since I'm not an
    expert in forest clearance, is dealing with CEQA.
        Mr. Harris. Sure.
        Mr. Greenhut. That is an impediment to everything. Our
    State--whenever there's a project, our State needs some
    lawmaker wants to get through, such as the Kings Arena in
    Sacramento, what's the first thing they do? A CEQA exemption.
    State has offered CEQA exemptions on different high-density
    housing projects. I agree with that.
        It's just that we need to do it in a far-reaching manner so
    that all sorts of projects are spared the delays and the added
    costs. Often developers don't even--and public agencies don't
    even propose projects because they know it's going to lead to
    lawsuits and years of litigation and higher costs.
        Mr. Harris. Well, again, let me just say in closing, I want
    to thank all of you on the panel for what you're sharing. I
    don't think anybody is here to exploit anything today.
        I think we're here because we want to get the takeaways
    that can help us prevent anything like this from happening
    again. Certainly, I feel that way for my own home State of
    North Carolina and others around the country.
        So, thank you, gentlemen, for sharing.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the Ranking
    Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
        I appreciate the remark of the gentleman from North
    Carolina that we should not be here to engage in political
    rhetoric and exploitation of these terrible events.
        States, counties, and localities all over America are
    affected by weather calamities that are coming on with
    extraordinary velocity because of climate change.
        I want to yield to the distinguished gentleman from
    California, Mr. Lieu, several minutes to pursue his line of
    questions.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Ranking Member Raskin.
        So, the majority's witnesses, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Ring, and Mr.
    Greenhut, are not firefighters. Thank goodness we do have a
    firefighter on this panel today, Mr. Frievalt, who not only was
    a firefighter, he was a Fire Chief. He, in his testimony, talks
    about that this is not a traditional wildfire. This is a
    wildland-urban conflagration.
        I'm going to show you, in a little bit, a video of what was
    happening. I just want to explain, when you solve the wrong
    problem, not only do you not get the solution, but you can
    cause harm.
        Donald Trump has it in his mind that somehow there's a
    spigot in Northern California that he's going to open a valve
    and dump water to Southern California. Here are the facts.
    Southern California's reservoirs are at near-record levels when
    this fire happened. Didn't matter. Because Donald Trump then
    ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to release over two billion
    gallons of water that almost flooded farmland if not for the
    local water districts that pushed back.
        Guess what? This water was saved for the farmers for the
    summer season when they needed the water. So, the President
    wasted all this water that isn't even reaching Southern
    California, it's going to evaporate, for a PR stunt. This was a
    harmful, ludicrous action to solve for the wrong problem.
        So, I want to show a video now of what was happening in the
    Eaton Fire that wiped out Altadena. Just watch this 15-second
    video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Lieu. That is not a timber harvest problem, not a
    desalinization problem, not a homeless person problem, not a
    voter ID problem. That is burning embers being blown by
    unprecedented Santa Ana winds that reached up to 100 miles per
    hour. These burning embers that could be softball size would
    fly for miles and miles and miles and hit a structure and set
    that structure on fire, and then that structure became the fuel
    for the fire. That's what was happening. The structures became
    the fuel for the fire.
        So, Mr. Frievalt, can you talk about--first, confirm that
    this true, and then explain in your testimony about
    strengthening the structure, the fire-resistant materials.
        Mr. Frievalt. I concur with what you said initially. Repeat
    the last part of your question, please.
        Mr. Lieu. In your testimony, you talk about how to harden
    some of these structures, fire resistant materials, which
    actually is something that might make sense, not for their
    other random policies that the majority witnesses are trying to
    jam through on ideological reasons.
        Mr. Frievalt. I would point to two standing sets of work
    that we could start on yesterday. The first is the wildfire
    prepared home designation from the Insurance Institute for
    Business & Home Safety. That's a package of mitigations that
    has been proven to be effective on really two things. First, it
    is preventative embers getting into structures and then
    starting the structure itself on fire. It also helps with low
    duration, low intensity fire in and around the structure.
        While those are necessary, they're insufficient when we get
    high concentrations of structure. We need to get enough of
    those parcel level mitigations done to protect structure-to-
    structure spread. If you just do one here, one there, you'll
    still lose that piece.
        Second, comes out of the National Institute for Standards
    and Technology, Technical Note 2205, Hazard Mitigation
    Methodology, excellent set of recommendations.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
        Let me just say this. It is particularly outrageous for
    witnesses to somehow blame Democrats. You know who signed CEQA?
    Ronald Reagan. That's who signed CEQA.
        Governor Newsom prepositioned assets before this fire, but
    those helicopters and airplanes could not fly over the Eaton
    fire because of their 100 mile per hour winds. That was the
    truth. That is what happened. Go do your own research.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Raskin. I'll yield back to the Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gooden.
        Mr. Gooden. I yield my time to Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields his time.
        Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        First, I want to assure Mr. Lieu that Messrs. Hilton, Ring,
    and Greenhut are three of the most insightful experts on
    California public policy that I've had the honor to work with
    during my 45 years of public service, and I can't imagine a
    more distinguished panel than we have before us right now.
        Mr. Lieu might also be surprised to learn that before the
    modern era, California lost four and a half million acres a
    year on average to catastrophic fire. Then, in the 20th
    century, we established land management agencies to do a little
    of the gardening ourselves instead of leaving it to nature.
        We auctioned off excess timber to logging companies that
    paid us to remove the excess. We leased public lands to cattle
    and sheep ranchers to suppress brush growth through grazing. We
    did controlled burns to remove undergrowth. We cut fire breaks
    to contain fires. We used herbicides to keep brush from
    residential areas. We put out fires before they could explode
    out of control. Our fire losses declined from four and a half
    million acres a year on average to just 250,000 acres a year
    throughout the 20th century.
        We don't know do those practices anymore. Our fire losses
    are now back up to an average of a million and a half acres. In
    2020, four and a half million acres.
        Mr. Greenhut, what happened?
        Mr. Greenhut. Thanks, Congressman.
        It just seems like an ideological shift. We've moved toward
    land preservation at all costs. I was just looking through,
    thinking of--
        Mr. McClintock. It doesn't preserve the land, does it? It's
    causing incineration of the land.
        Mr. Greenhut. Exactly. The idea is to preserve species. We
    pointed out before that some of its growth control too. Pointed
    out that a project was stopped for hardening the telephone
    poles over concerns about an endangered weed.
        Mr. McClintock. Mr. Ring, is this a policy issue or is this
    an act of God?
        Mr. Ring. Everything's an act of God, but policy has a lot
    to do with what actually happens.
        California's forest, since the enforcement of environmental
    regulations became more aggressive, are now overgrown. I know
    you're very familiar with this. The average tree density--and
    this is verified by several studies from universities in
    California: Merced, Berkeley, Davis, and elsewhere. The tree
    density in the central Sierra is now about five times what's
    historically normal.
        The ladder fuels which would--ordinarily, that's the scrub
    and underbrush, and young trees, which would normally burn in
    controlled burns or fires started by lightning strikes. When
    that doesn't happen anymore, you have trees that are allegedly
    dying because of climate change, but they're actually dying
    because you've got so many more trees competing with the same
    amount of light and nutrients.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, yes, you can actually tell the
    boundary between the private lands that are not subject to
    these laws and the public lands just by the condition of the
    forest on each side of that boundary line. How clever of the
    climate to know exactly where the boundary lines are and only
    decimate the Federal lands.
        I can offer some good news and that is, in 2016, we got a
    categorical exclusion from NEPA for forest thinning projects in
    the Tahoe Basin Management Unit. That simple change has taken
    the environmental studies from four and a half years down to
    just a few months. It has taken the environmental reports from
    800 pages down to a few dozen. It's increased the timber yield
    on the Tahoe Basin from one million board feed a year to nine
    million board feed a year. It's tripled the amount of treated
    acreage. That's what saved the town of South Lake Tahoe from
    the Caldor Fire.
        Unfortunately, right across the boundary line was the town
    of Grizzly Flats that was not protected by this law. It was
    completely incinerated by the same fire. Now, we got those
    provisions finally this year, just a few weeks ago, into the
    Fix Our Forest Act. It passed the House with 141 Democrats
    opposing it.
        Mr. Hilton, I'll give you the final word. What would you
    say to those Democrats?
        Mr. Hilton. I think I'd first say to Mr. Lieu, we'd take
    his righteous indignation a little bit more seriously if he
    wasn't in nearly every single case the first to jump on one of
    the terrible tragedies that we see too often in our country of
    mass shooting, to immediately call for the kinds of reforms
    that would stop it happening.
        Mr. Lieu. These fires have nothing to do with mass
    shootings.
        Mr. Hilton. Exactly. That's what we're here to do, to stop
    people dying, to stop people losing their homes, and to stop
    the terrible human and economic cost of these fires. That's
    what we are here arguing for, those changes that could be made
    and would stop the severity and impact of these kinds of fires.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired.
        We'll now go to the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I also want to thank and welcome our witnesses here today.
    It is a very important issue for California, as well as the
    rest of the country.
        I'm a life-long Californian. I know the Santa Ana winds.
    They're hot, dry, strong, unpredictable, and unforgiving. Just
    heard Mr. Lieu talk about 100 mile an hour winds. This time,
    this area, it was the perfect storm.
        Hurricane strength winds, along with prolonged droughts, in
    Southern California made just fighting these fires impossible,
    led to devastation, loss of property, and terribly loss of
    life. Natural disasters are plaguing every State; floods,
    hurricanes, and fires. Insurance companies are leaving many
    States, not just California.
        Texas led the Nation when it came to natural disasters.
    From 2004-2024, there were $179 billion-plus natural disasters
    in Texas; North Carolina had 82; Virginia had 80; Wisconsin had
    49; Wyoming had 31; Florida had 61; and California had 31.
    These disasters occur in every State and their frequency is
    increasing. These disasters, these perfect storms I would say,
    occur more and more.
        Last May in Texas, a storm with hurricane-force winds
    knocked out power to over a million homes and businesses. In
    Florida and North Carolina, Hurricane Helene caused historic
    flooding and tremendous damage.
        Catastrophic wildfires have occurred across the Nation,
    including the Germann Road Fire in Wisconsin and the Great
    Smoky Mountains wildfire in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Insurers are
    fleeing these States. In Florida and Louisiana, many insurers
    have either left or gone bankrupt.
        In Texas, North Carolina, and many other States, you're
    seeing tremendous rate increases. In Texas, which experienced
    $16 billion weather-related events in 2023, five major insurers
    have ended or limited their coverage. Florida, Louisiana, and
    North Carolina all have reported nonrenewal rates greater than
    that in California in 2023. Nationwide, nonrenewal rates have
    jumped up 30 percent from 2018-2022.
        What we're trying to say is this is not a California
    crisis. This is a national crisis. We're California. Everybody
    likes to bash us. We are the center of the universe, that I'd
    say. We're the center of high tech, biotech, and we are the
    center of the entertainment industry.
        By the way, we're the No. 5 economy in the world. I hope
    that doesn't bring us any tariffs. We're also home to 70
    percent of the venture capital in the U.S., and, of course,
    home to 40 million people.
        Let's be clear. Disaster aid should never be preconditioned
    on political agendas. All of us have voted for aid for other
    States when they needed it, and we do learn from every disaster
    in California.
        Right now, California has dedicated billions of dollars,
    nearly doubling the amount we spent in 2019, to address the
    causes of forest fires. CAL FIRE and others have worked on over
    a million acres to reduce these activities that would lead to
    fires.
        California, we're doing our job. It's just the situations
    that have been impossible.
        We're all Americans, and I hope all of us remember that
    when it comes to disaster relief. When one American suffers,
    the rest of us need to show up and help. That's what we do
    best.
        Mr. Chair, I'm out of time. I yield.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Climate change and global warming are the scapegoats for
    the Democrats and radical environmentalists to deflect
    attention from their failed policies and the destruction caused
    by their own actions.
        In 2001, under Bill Clinton, the Forest Service adopted the
    Roadless Rule, which was designed to deny access, management,
    and use to 58.5 million acres of national forest service lands.
    We warned at the time that this rule would cause catastrophic
    forest fires, reduce the amount of water available for
    communities for farming and other uses, and also result in
    catastrophic pine beetle outbreaks, which is, in fact, exactly
    what has occurred. Every single one of the things that we
    described would happen has, in fact, happened, and California
    has suffered maybe more than many of the States.
        Recently, the gentleman who ran the Forest Service under
    Joe Biden actually admitted in a hearing that the Roadless Rule
    was one of the primary roadblocks to proper an effective forest
    range management. To say that the government is always trying
    to fix its last solution, I don't think you need to look any
    further than the Roadless Rule.
        California has essentially the same water infrastructure in
    place today with 40 million people that it had in the 1960s
    with 16 million people. When we talk about putting conditions
    on the kind of relief that is going to be necessary to help to
    rebuild California, it must include additional water
    infrastructure and fire mitigation methods to avoid having
    these kinds of catastrophes happen ever again.
        I have an article that I have just recently pulled up. It
    stated that Newsom vetoed a bill to enhance fire mitigation so
    he could grab the land for affordable housing. This was a bill
    that was introduced in 2020, SB182. It was authored by then
    State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat from Santa
    Barbara, whose district had just suffered the Thomas Fire. This
    bill sought to increase local planning requirements and
    guidelines for permitting development in certain fire hazard
    severity zones.
        What happened to that bill? It passed through both the
    Senate and the House. It was actually a very good bill. What
    happened? Mr. Newsom vetoed it. Why did he veto it? Because it
    did not comport with his idea of getting rid of single-family
    homes and pushing people into multifamily homes.
        In his letter, veto letter, he actually stated, ``Wildfire
    resilience must become a more consistent part of land use and
    development decisions.'' ``However''--whenever a politician
    uses the word ``however,'' you know they're going in the
    opposite direction, don't you? ``However, it must be done while
    meeting our housing needs.''
        For him, he wanted the money and the attention and the
    policy to focus on multifamily homes, not in protecting and
    hardening the resources available for the existing homes.
        So, call me a bit skeptical when I hear the folks on the
    other side jump up and down and scream and yell about the fact
    that they've been doing everything necessary to try to harden
    and try to address these catastrophes when the exact opposite
    is, in fact, true.
        These catastrophes that we have seen over the last couple
    of months did not need to happen. This is not about climate
    change. This is not about global warming. This is about bad
    land use decisions, bad policies, and restrictions on being
    able to actually make the kinds of changes that must be made.
        Mr. Ring, while you were being questioned earlier, you
    mentioned the need for ESA reform and penalties for frivolous
    lawsuits, but I don't think that you had sufficient time to
    explain what you were referring to. Would you please explain
    what you were talking about?
        Mr. Ring. Well, Steve talked about this as well, and it
    applies to almost any kind of development or land use decision
    in California. There are laws, and it's not just CEQA, it's the
    California Air Quality Management. The CARB is an agency, and
    the Coastal Commission, which came up. There's countless laws
    and regulations that provide grounds for lawsuits.
        One of the things that might be a very meaningful reform to
    CEQA would be to take away standing to third-party attorneys
    that truly have used CEQA as a business model and restrict CEQA
    lawsuits to district attorneys and the State Attorney General.
        By the way, when CEQA was signed by Governor Reagan in
    1970, it was a two-page document that could be filed within
    weeks. Now, it's an 800-page document that takes years.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Ring, the gentleman's time has expired.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. We're now going to go to Mr. Correa for a
    UC.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit some
    documents for the record.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, without objection.
        Mr. Correa. First, Progressive Insurance becomes the latest
    insurer to flee Texas, October 19, 2024.
        Second, 15 States Facing Eminent Insurance Crisis, October
    4, 2024.
        Third, the insurance crisis that started in Florida and
    California is now spreading. Your State could be next, July 2,
    2024.
        Fourth, California isn't the only place where insurers are
    dropping homeowners, January 18, 2025.
        Fifth, letter from Congressman Costa to Secretary Hegseth,
    dated February 1, 2025, concerning unplanned water releases.
        Sixth, a letter from the Members of the California
    delegation to the Chair Fitzgerald, and Ranking Member Nadler,
    dated February 5, 2025, supporting Californian's insurance
    regulation.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
    from Vermont, Ms. Balint.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The scale of this disaster is really almost impossible to
    comprehend. We've got 29 people who are dead. We've got 16,000
    structures that were destroyed, so many Californians injured.
    While these devastating fires were raging on, Republicans'
    first reaction was to blame the wildfires on, quote, ``DEI.''
        I'd like every witness to answer this simple question yes
    or no, starting with Mr. Greenhut. Do you believe that people
    in Los Angeles died because the fire chief is a lesbian? Yes or
    no?
        Mr. Greenhut. No.
        Ms. Balint. No. OK.
        Mr. Ring, do you believe people in Los Angeles died because
    the fire chief is a lesbian?
        Mr. Ring. No.
        Ms. Balint. Great.
        Mr.--I don't know because your name is now upside down.
        Mr. Hilton, do you believe that people in Los Angeles died
    because the fire chief is a lesbian?
        Mr. Hilton. No.
        Ms. Balint. Mr. Frievalt, do you believe that the people of
    Los Angeles died because the fire chief is a lesbian?
        Mr. Frievalt. No.
        Ms. Balint. Great. So, glad we established that.
        I want to remind everyone that while fires raged through
    Main Street and Palisades, Elon Musk said that DEI means people
    die, in reference to the Los Angeles Fire Department's
    response. My House colleagues seem to agree.
        This here is a tweet from Representative Marjorie Taylor
    Greene posted on her official social media. It says, ``How is
    your DEI mayor of Los Angeles working out for you?''
        It's become crystal clear that the phrase ``DEI'' is used
    in place of much more offensive terms to talk about people of
    color, to talk about women, or queer people in this country.
    It's sickening and they are literally saying this while people
    are dying.
        So, obviously, this has nothing to do with the families who
    lost everything. It does not do anything for the communities
    that were destroyed. It's an absolutely wrong way to deal with,
    when you have a natural disaster. I know because the last two
    summers in Vermont we've had catastrophic flooding.
        What people need at this moment is leadership. Americans
    need us to get the resources that they need out to them
    immediately. America does not need a President that is hell-
    bent on dismantling our Federal emergency management system or
    conditioning aid to California to profit off a community's
    devastation.
        All this talk of DEI is a complete and utter distraction
    from the fact that we need a plan, an actual plan to help the
    people of California who lost everything.
        At this point, I'm going to yield back the balance of my
    time to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Congresswoman, for yielding
    me your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to be here.
        I love California, and I don't like people shading my
    State, but sometimes funding disparities and a national
    election out of the fifth largest economy in the world,
    California, can roil a person's feelings about our State as a
    whole. These frail emotions should not debilitate a leader's
    execution of their job serving all the American people.
        California fires and the consequence of overregulations is
    a gross title misnomer.
        Mr. Frievalt, I have a few yes or no questions for you.
    Would you agree that the Eaton Fire happened in Altadena, an
    unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County? Yes or no?
        Mr. Frievalt. Yes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Is it safe to say that L.A. County
    has more relaxed zoning ordinances and building regulations
    than the city of Los Angeles?
        Mr. Frievalt. I do not have enough knowledge to give you a
    yes or no answer.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. The answer is yes.
        Would you agree that permissive building codes--the notion
    of permissive building codes are antithetical to
    overregulation?
        Mr. Frievalt. The details in that question are too foreign
    for me to answer yes or no.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It's a very simple question.
        Permissive building codes do not equal overregulation.
        Mr. Frievalt. I can't answer the question.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. All right. I'm going to answer that for
    you. Yes. Because at the end of the day, I would say, and I
    don't know if you would agree, that the entire framing of this
    hearing is actually based on a false premise. Yes or no?
        Mr. Frievalt. I believe we're approaching the discussion
    from a legacy standpoint. We're looking backward in the
    discussions and the questions when we need to be looking
    forward.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. We do. Instead of blaming California for
    overregulation, we should be talking about ways to help the
    thousands of people who lost their lives in these fires,
    including some of my own family members.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlelady's time has expired and
    yields back.
        I now recognize the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Jordan.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Hilton, you said in your testimony the speed, scale,
    and destructiveness of the fires was the direct result of
    Democrat policies. I want to know why.
        I assume those policies are why they stopped logging in
    California, why they stopped clearing controlled burns, and
    other things that's been mentioned by all the experts and some
    of our colleagues. Why would they stop those things if they
    were working?
        Mr. Hilton. The answer is that, as we discussed earlier,
    there's an ideology in play, which is extreme, and it avoids
    the kind of commonsense action that had been taken for years,
    and that is what is at the heart of the fuel load. That is the
    key concept here.
        Of course, it's true that there are winds, but it's not
    true to say that these Santa Ana winds were unprecedented. They
    were their highest in 14 years, but not unprecedented. When we
    hear about Los Angeles, of course, I agree about the points
    that were made in relation to the fire chief, but there is an
    important--if we could use a different--take one letter from
    the acronym DEI and just take the ``I'' and start a different
    word with it, ``incompetence.''
        Because you did see a total lack of coordination between
    the city firefighting force, the county, and other leadership.
    You saw a massive delay in getting equipment to that forest
    fire, which could have made a big difference in containing it.
    Forty-four minutes before anyone was there. You had the
    warnings of this disaster on January 2nd of severe winds; on
    January 3rd, life threatening winds; on January 4th, the mayor
    leaves the country. You saw a totally unprecedented set of
    incompetent responses in preparation.
        The policy failures we've outlined them. The brush
    clearance was stopped, and so the fuel load was higher, and
    that meant it spread. This conflagration spread so much quicker
    than it needs to have been.
        A point that Mr. Nadler made about the reservoir. We need
    to address this. He talked about a small reservoir. No, it was
    117 million gallons. It was built in the 1960s precisely for
    the purpose of dealing with wildfires. That's why it was built.
        It was offline for one year. Why was it offline for a year?
    Because it was action to comply with Federal regulation about
    the covers, a small tear in the cover, and they emptied the
    reservoir for a year.
        These are serious points. I hear all the time we mustn't
    politicize, mustn't make it political. I agree with that. It is
    about policy. It is about policy choices that were made that
    led to the scale and severity and impact of that.
        On insurance as well. I heard this talk about Florida. No,
    it's a different reason you had a crisis in Florida with
    insurance. It's about scam and frivolous lawsuits which have
    been addressed by the Governor.
        In California, one of the reasons that insurance costs are
    so high is because it costs four or five times as much to build
    the exact same floor plan for a building in California as it
    does in neighboring States. Why? Because of the building codes,
    because of the CEQA legislation.
        Exactly as my colleague was saying, we need to end the
    private right of action under CEQA. That would make a huge
    difference. You can help with that. We are all here to stop
    this kind of thing happening again, and there are practical
    commonsense things we can do, which all of us have laid out.
        Chair Jordan. I'm going to yield my time to the gentleman
    from California, the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you very much.
        In response to the gentlewoman from Vermont, I think the
    issue here is, for example, there was one firefighter turned
    whistleblower who said that L.A. will only purchase from
    vendors that support DEI, resulting in the fire department
    having to go with a vendor that will have to pay twice as much
    or the shipment may take twice as long because of that
    requirement.
        So, I think the point is that a public safety organization
    should be singularly focused on public safety, and this is not
    the place for ideology or social engineering.
        Mr. Hilton, one of the things that was appalling to many of
    us in the middle of the fires was that our Governor Gavin
    Newsom, set up a political website that was devoted to
    promoting himself and defending his record and trying to
    deflect blame and a rapid response organization designed to
    attack people and call any criticism of his record
    misinformation.
        I do think it's important to set the record straight. This
    is a story from Capital Public Radio from a few years ago. Now,
    is Cap Radio, is that the local FOX News affiliate or
    something?
        Mr. Hilton. I don't think it is.
        Mr. Kiley. Yes. It's the NPR affiliate, right?
        Mr. Hilton. It's NPR.
        Mr. Kiley. Not known to be a right-leaning conservative
    outlet.
        Here's the headline: ``Newsom misled the public about
    wildfire prevention efforts ahead of the worst fire season on
    record.'' An investigation from Cap Radio and NPR's California
    newsroom found the Governor has misrepresented his
    accomplishments and even disinvested in wildfire prevention.
    The investigation found Newsom overstated by an astounding 690
    percent the number of acres treated with fuel breaks and
    prescribed burns in the very forestry projects he said,
    ``needed to be prioritized to protect the State's most
    vulnerable communities.''
        If it's true that fuel management and fuel reduction
    projects are so unimportant, as we're hearing from the other
    side today, then why did the Governor feel the need to lie
    about it?
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Garcia.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all the witnesses
    here today.
        Now, in my opinion, the topic of this hearing is missing
    the point. What we should be focusing on is (1) how to help
    now, and (2) how to address the root causes of drought and
    intensifying fires to prevent this from happening again.
    Instead, we've seen officials in the Trump Administration are
    talking about DEI instead of how we're going to help people. My
    colleague, Representative Balint, has already made that point.
    We're talking about how to cut disaster aid instead of letting
    FEMA do its job, which is literally to help people after
    disasters.
        I'd like to hear from Mr. Frievalt, our witness who's a
    retired fire chief. Please, a yes or no answer. The question
    won't be that difficult.
        Yes or no, is DEI making firefighters less effective?
        Mr. Frievalt. No.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. That's all right.
        Contrary to Elon Musk's claims that the L.A. firefighters
    did not prioritize DEI over saving lives. That is a lie, and it
    is a slap in the face to dedicated professionals and volunteers
    across the country who undergo rigorous training and risk their
    lives to save others.
        It was offensive when President Trump used DEI to blame air
    traffic controllers, and it's offensive here too. Despite
    Trump's lies about FEMA, the Agency continues to help disaster-
    impacted communities during times of great need.
        So, again, I'd like to ask a question to Mr. Frievalt. Mr.
    Frievalt, yes or no, is climate change worsening disasters?
        Mr. Frievalt. From the fire perspective, the one element of
    climate change I can speak to is vapor pressure deficit.
        Mr. Garcia. Is that a yes in that respect?
        Mr. Frievalt. That part is making it more severe, yes.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
        As climate change worsens, disasters across the country,
    and as FEMA disaster declarations rise, districts across the
    country, represented Members across the political spectrum are
    at risk. In fact, in two Illinois counties from my district
    that it runs through, Cook County and DuPage County, we've had
    no fewer than five disasters declared since 2019. Two of those
    disasters, both flooding-related, hit my district real hard,
    and many of my constituents were able to receive FEMA's
    assistance for repairs and losses.
        Without further ado, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield my
    time to my friend from California, Mr. Swalwell.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
        I've toured the Altadena area. I visited the Palisades.
    I've had disasters in my own district, fire and flood. Every
    person in those disasters and experiences told me the same
    thing. They just want the government to help them. They just
    want the government to help them.
        That's what a woman told me when she stood on a pile of
    ashes in the Palisades and brought gloves and a large garbage
    bag and searched for any memento for her child, and walked away
    with a tin bowl that her daughter uses in her make-believe
    kitchen. She's not worried about the red team or the blue team.
    She's not worried about did DEI cause this or not. She just
    wants the government to help them.
        My colleagues, including Mr. Issa, we walked Altadena last
    week together. We heard the fire chief say these were 80 mile
    per hour winds. He said it would have taken every fire engine
    in California to stop the devastation that occurred in
    California.
        I just ask my colleagues. Let's work together on this.
    Let's be in the solutions business. Don't use DEI as an alibi.
    Because when the President blames DEI on an air disaster and
    blames DEI on a fire disaster, what that tells me is DEI to you
    stands for ``didn't even investigate.'' That's what it means to
    fire victims in California as well. We're in the solutions
    business here.
        Chief Frievalt, I'd like for you to just tell us, as we
    move forward, as we look at code and zoning, what can we do to
    better protect against unseasonable winds in this new era that
    we're in?
        Mr. Frievalt. I return back to my opening statements on the
    three concurrent integrated actions. I don't believe you were
    here, but essentially prioritize selective management of
    combustible fuels immediately adjacent to wildland-urban
    interface communities, retroactively harden existing structures
    in rural communities through evidence-based mitigations with
    defensible space, and require evidence-based mitigations to be
    included in part of the actuarial pricing of the insurance rate
    setting.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now go to the Congressman from California, Mr. Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Hello, Mr. Hilton. I'm going to direct my questions toward
    you, but I'm going to first thank my friend and colleague, Mr.
    Swalwell. Because we were there together. We did stand
    together. We heard the same chiefs say the same thing.
        The problem is he mentioned something that absolutely is
    true. Those people, the firefighters and the residents of
    Altadena, could not have stopped that fire. It was not going to
    happen with 80 mile an hour sustained winds. Whether there was
    unlimited water or not, it would have gone sideways. It
    wouldn't have gone down if they dropped it. We heard that
    together.
        We also heard a question from one of our mayors who asked,
    looking up at the hill where we were told the fire began--and
    they actually had camera footage of it beginning--could you
    have stopped it? No. Exactly as Mr. Swalwell said. Then he
    asked, ``well, but if it had been cleared, would this have
    happened?'' He said, ``absolutely not.''
        So, we have two truisms. One is no amount of water, no
    amount of fire equipment in the State in any way, shape, or
    form could have stopped the sustained 80 mile an hour wind with
    an unlimited amount of fuel that had built up over 30 years,
    never having been cleared under California law.
        Followup questions, Mr. Hilton. The mayor, mayor of Vista
    asked the question, ``Why wasn't it cleared?'' He said, ``we
    can't get the authority.'' He said, ``on the other side of the
    mountain on more Federal land, some of it has been, but we have
    not been able to get a controlled burn on that in 30 years.''
        I'm going to ask you just one more followup. I'll give you
    one more followup question and then I'll explain it to you.
    Amazingly, we asked, ``is this fire--could it happen again?''
    He said, ``oh, after what happened there, it couldn't happen
    again for a decade because it's been cleared.''
        Mr. Hilton. Yes.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Hilton, is that what you're trying to
    achieve? Is that what you're bringing to us, is the commonsense
    question of why didn't we clear it, and when are we going to
    clear similar hillsides so that people not suffer again?
        Mr. Hilton. Exactly. It is the best or most simple, common
    sense preventative measure we can take. Here it is. This is the
    California Air Resources Board, 2000, their new smoke
    management guidelines which prevented the clearance. Those
    hills haven't been cleared for 25 years. How's the smoke now?
    It's just so counterproductive. I'm not saying it's ill-
    intentioned, but the consequences have been deadly and
    devastating.
        As I mentioned earlier, the Santa Monica Mountain
    Conservancy, stopping people, saying you're going to be fined
    if you take responsible action to clear the brush. As I said
    earlier, it's our firefighters who end up having to clear the
    brush after the event. That's what they're doing when they say
    we're containing the fire. They're using bulldozers and axes to
    stop the perimeter from spreading. Why don't we do it before?
    Then we can prevent this loss of life.
        I agree with Mr. Swalwell. We need solutions. I totally
    agree. That's why my organization, Golden Together published a
    document, ``Rescue, Reform, Rebuild,'' with specific
    recommendations for how we can stop it happening again.
        Even on the question of firefighting, we can learn from
    other countries who do this better using technology to spot
    fires much early, so they can be extinguished earlier, so they
    don't spread and turn into these kinds of--
        Mr. Issa. If I can call on my colleague, Mr. Swalwell,
    again. Last month, I introduced H.R. 71, and, oddly enough,
    what you see behind me is the amount of pages of green tape
    wrapped bureaucracy we would eliminate if H.R. 731 passes. Yes,
    that's five feet of single-line printing that we would
    eliminate. That's what we're trying to do, and I would hope
    that my colleague would look at the bill, join me in cutting
    through some of that red tape.
        I want to leave with one thing. We have a lot to do
    together. Hopefully this hearing is going to cause people to
    realize that we can't blame just the water reservoir. We can't
    blame not enough firemen. We certainly can't blame the
    homeowners. We have to blame the fact that we created an event
    that was going to happen sooner or later. It happened to happen
    there.
        Mr. Hilton, what you brought to us today, and all of you,
    is the reality that this will happen again the next time
    there's a spark and a sustained wind in California and fuel
    that has not been taken away for more than 30 years.
        So, I'm hoping that we learn from this. I'm hoping that my
    colleagues and I can work together on the points that we can
    agree on. I want to thank the witnesses for bringing up the
    fact that this was preventable. The problem was your
    government.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I was also able to visit the scene of the fire last week
    with my colleague Mr. Issa and Swalwell. It was just tragic.
    The devastation is hard to comprehend, and the people,
    thousands and thousands of people who lost everything, it's
    really tragic.
        We need to work together to make sure that we do our very
    best to prevent something like that from ever happening again.
        I do think it's important that we have the facts in front
    of us. For example, under the State's leadership, the number of
    CAL FIRE personnel nearly doubled from 2019 to the present. The
    State has now invested $2 billion in managing and reducing fuel
    load in forests. In fact, the prescribed fire activity has more
    than doubled from 2021-2023.
        I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put a fact sheet into
    the record, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. I understand that the R Street has connections
    to ensure--there have been representatives from insurance
    companies, nothing illegal or wrong about that, but what's
    being proposed is really in the insurance area something that
    is, I don't think, workable.
        Florida tried it and it didn't work. The premiums are two
    and a half times as high in Florida as they are in California,
    but there is a problem with insurance in California and across
    the United States that we don't have an answer to.
        I would ask unanimous consent to put that information in
    the record, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note, looking at the
    mountains in back of the fire in Altadena you talk about
    forest, that wasn't a forest. It was chaparral. It was scrub.
        One of the things that happens in California is we go from
    the rivers to the drought. In 2023, Los Angeles County got 200
    percent of average rainfall. It just soaked the place, and the
    vegetation took off. The next year, 2024, was the second driest
    year in history in L.A. County. So, all that vegetation that
    got spurred by the rain dried to a tinder. It was a tinder box.
        One of the things that the fire chief told us when we
    visited last week is they want to do prescribed burns when it's
    wet. It's just about to rain, because they don't want--in New
    Mexico, they had a conflagration because a prescribed burn took
    off. It hasn't done that kind of rain in L.A., except for this
    week, from last April. There was no rain at all. They couldn't
    do a prescribed burn on those hillsides. They're too steep to
    put bulldozers in. That's impossible.
        So, I'm just wondering, Mr. Frievalt, as a fire chief, what
    do you do in a situation like that?
        I grew up with the mission that only you can prevent forest
    fires, right. Smokey the Bear told us that. We didn't realize
    when we did that we were building up this fuel load that needed
    to--it's a tinder box. It needs to be removed. It's going to
    take a while to sort through the accumulation of that fire.
        What do you do in a situation like Altadena where you have
    that chaparral, it's dry as a tinder, and it's not wet? You
    can't burn it. What do you do, Mr. Frievalt?
        Mr. Frievalt. This is why I keep coming back to needing to
    rethink the problem. This is not a wildfire problem. When we
    have embers that will travel miles, fire breaks won't
    accomplish what you're looking for. We will have fires and
    ignitions and the conditions we have now long before any of the
    policy discussions we're going to have--the current ones we're
    having are going to have an effect.
        We must, as fast as possible, deal with the ignitability of
    the structures in these fire-dependent landscapes. If this is
    really about dropping losses of property and life in those
    settings, if that's what we're setting out to do, with laser
    focus we have to mitigate those structures and do it at a
    density that will keep the structures from becoming a fuel
    tide.
        You've heard it from everybody. Those conditions, you
    cannot stop the fire spread. Those conditions are going to get
    worse. They're not going to plateau. This discussion about fire
    breaks and the idea of treating millions of acres, we need to
    get there.
        To your point, it's called prescribed fires for a reason.
    There's a prescription, which means there are parameters that
    you do them in. If you don't do them in the right way, you do
    have things like the Peshtigo Fire or the Hermits Peak Fire.
    So, you absolutely need to harden structures first.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baum-
    gartner.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the
    Members of the Committee and to our distinguished panelists
    here.
        I was able to visit the fires last week. Saw that immense
    destruction. I also have some personal background here. My
    father was 40 years a professor of forestry. My uncle was a
    smoke jumper. My other uncle laid out more timber sales than
    anyone in Oregon history. I worked two summers on fire science
    research teams, and, frankly, we have way too much fuel load in
    our Western forest given 100 years of fire suppression.
        I'd like to get the solutions, so I'm going to show a short
    video from some folks in Northeast Washington that can go in
    and do the kind of forest management that we need to reduce
    these fuel loads. This is from Vaagen Timber. What they do is
    they can take very small diameter trees and still get some
    value out of them and clean out the forest.
        This is what the solution would look like. If we could play
    the video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you.
        This is the solution that we need to implement in many of
    our forests in the Western U.S.
        My question, perhaps to Mr. Ring here, would be, what would
    it take for California to be able to implement these
    commonsense forest policies to rebalance our forest for a
    healthy forest?
        Mr. Ring. Well, we'd have to bring back the timber
    industry. We'd have to have a way to bring back, for example,
    130 mills. We're in California. You need to be within 60 miles
    of a forest to have an economical mill, and we're down to 30
    mills. That's an example of something where there needs to be
    some revolving loan funds, for example, to help the timber
    industry get back up to speed.
        We need to allow logging into national forests, which is
    very hard. Fifty-seven percent of California's forests'
    marketable timber is in national forest.
        We also have to recognize that private companies thin the
    forests far more efficiently. I talked with firefighters as
    well, Congressman Lieu, and the firefighters that I talked with
    said that CAL FIRE typically has so many people on the job and
    does forest clearing with so many rules and command and control
    and so forth that they are at about--well, he gave me an
    example, one of the firefighters. There was 28 people doing
    half the work that a three-man crew on an adjacent property was
    able to do from a private company.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
        I'm going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    the statement from NAMIC. Without objection.
        We now go to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        It's good to be with you all today. Thank you for your
    testimony.
        On January 24th, President Trump announced that he wanted
    to dismantle FEMA, saying, quote, ``I think we're going to
    recommend that FEMA go away.''
        Now, what FEMA does is help people before, during, and
    after disasters, and they've got a track record of
    effectiveness.
        Now, Mr. Hilton, yes or no, do you agree with President
    Trump that we should get rid of FEMA?
        Mr. Hilton. I don't think that question is relevant to this
    hearing, frankly. We're talking about the role of
    overregulation leading to the wildfires.
        Mr. Johnson. No, no, no, no, no. Listen, I'm the one--hold
    on, sir. Hold on, sir. I'm the one that asks the questions.
        Mr. Hilton. Sir, I'm responding by saying I don't think
    it's relevant to the hearing.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, if you don't want to answer the
    question, that's something different, and I understand why you
    would not.
        Mr. Hilton. I just think we should focus our time on
    something--
        Mr. Johnson. You're probably afraid to answer the question.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Ring. Do you agree that FEMA should be
    eliminated?
        Mr. Ring. Reform, not eliminate, no.
        Mr. Johnson. What about you, Mr. Greenhut?
        Mr. Greenhut. I don't have any opinion on FEMA. That's not
    why I'm here.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, I can understand why you wouldn't
    want to opine on it either. You're probably afraid also.
        Mr. Greenhut. I'm not afraid. I just don't like to take
    opinions on things that I haven't studied.
        Mr. Johnson. You're not afraid of crossing Donald Trump?
        Mr. Greenhut. I'm not here on a partisan basis. I'm not
    even a Republican.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you still don't want to cross swords
    with Donald Trump. I understand. A lot of our witnesses feel
    the same way that you do and for good reason.
        Now, let me ask you this question, Mr. Frievalt. Last week,
    in his esteemed wisdom, President Trump ordered the release of
    billions of gallons of water from two dams in the California
    Central Valley in a different basin than Los Angeles sits. His
    reason was to enable Los Angeles to have more water to put out
    the fires.
        Now, neither of those dams would supply water to Los
    Angeles. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Frievalt. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Johnson. There's no way to move water from one basin to
    the next, correct?
        Mr. Frievalt. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Johnson. Instead of releasing water that goes to fight
    the fires in Los Angeles from San Francisco, those billions of
    gallons of water that President Trump ordered the Corps of
    Engineers to release just went to waste, correct?
        Mr. Frievalt. I do not know the final outcome of the water
    or the water system at that level.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, it went on into the ocean. The plan had
    been for that water to enable farmers in the Central Valley to
    be able to water their crops during the upcoming season of
    growth. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Frievalt. I'm sorry. Restate the last part of the
    question.
        Mr. Johnson. In other words, the water that President Trump
    wasted, putting it in the Pacific Ocean, was meant for farmers
    in the Central Valley to use in this current growing season to
    water their crops, correct?
        Mr. Hilton. Would you like me to help you with this
    question, sir?
        Mr. Johnson. No.
        Mr. Hilton. Because I can give you the answers you're
    looking for.
        Mr. Johnson. I'm not interested in talking--
        Mr. Hilton. You're not interested in actual answers?
        Mr. Johnson. Since you are afraid to answer my questions.
        Mr. Hilton. I'm just about to answer your question if
    you'll let me.
        Mr. Johnson. I'm the one asking the questions. You're the
    one that should be answering them, but you've already refused
    to do so.
        Mr. Hilton. I'm trying to, but you're not letting me.
        Mr. Johnson. I'm not asking you about this one, though. Mr.
    Frievalt I'm talking to.
        Mr. Frievalt?
        Mr. Hilton. He said he's not focused on it. I can help you
    with it, if you'll only ask me.
        Mr. Frievalt. Let me answer, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. Sir, if you would just be quiet, that would be
    helpful.
        Mr. Frievalt?
        Mr. Frievalt. I do not understand the operational benefit
    to the L.A. fires and the release of the water.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. It was a ridiculous decision, reckless,
    and unhelpful.
        Mr. Frievalt, you have 40 years of experience in the fire
    service. The other witnesses said that, ``California's air
    quality regulations stopped the controlled burns that would
    have prevented the fires.'' Given Southern California's
    chaparral-dominated ecosystems, those kinds of controlled burns
    would have actually put them at greater risk of uncontrolled
    fires. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Johnson. The Chair is not going to afford me the same
    leeway that it has afforded other Members of the panel to go
    over their time?
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The witness can answer the question.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Frievalt. I believe the question was did the air
    quality management rules impede the ability to do prescribed
    fires. Is that the question?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, would those controlled burns have
    actually put the community at greater risk of uncontrolled
    fires?
        Mr. Frievalt. Prescribed fires conducted outside of
    prescription can cause greater risk. Prescribed fires done
    within prescription can be a tremendous benefit.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. All right. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        I want to ask Mr. Greenhut. California's home insurance
    market is being held hostage by insurance commissioners and a
    judicial system that punishes insurers for attempting to price
    insurance based on risk. For example, in 2014, State Farm
    requested a rate increase of 6.9 percent, which was opposed by
    the insurance commissioner and an advocacy group. Initially,
    State Farm was told that instead of a rate increase, they were
    to retrospectively reduce rates by seven percent and rebate
    their customers $100 million in excess premiums.
        After years of litigation, the courts ruled that State Farm
    didn't have to pay back the excessive premiums, but they were
    ordered to pay 2.2 million to the consumer group for their
    legal fees. My understanding is this is allowing outside
    intervenors, as it were, to challenge proposed insurance rate
    increases and being paid expenses for doing so.
        Is it reasonable to expect insurance companies to operate
    in an environment that required them to pay off their
    challengers even when they win in court?
        Mr. Greenhut. Well, imagine this started in 2016, and it
    was resolved, what, a year or two ago. The whole system--and it
    was designed by the consumer organization, and they get paid
    intervenor fees for, supposedly, standing up for consumers.
    That whole process took several years.
        Imagine going, if you have a business, and you propose a
    rate increase, and then the government says, no, you have to
    decrease rates by X amount. Then you get launched into this
    long court battle. Even after you win the court battle, which
    State Farm did--and it was a pretty strong verdict in their
    favor--they still had to pay these intervenors around a couple
    million dollars.
        Now, under Prop 103, there are things that the State could
    do without going back to the initiative process to look more
    closely at how these intervenors are paid and make sure that
    they contribute substantially to the process. A lot of this is
    language in Prop 103. We need to enforce that language as it
    exists.
        There are things that could be done about that intervenor
    process without going back to the ballot.
        Mr. Cline. It sounds like, once again, California way of
    thinking. To that end, let me yield the remainder of my time to
    my colleague from California, Mr. Kiley.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you very much.
        One of the problems with making climate change the sole
    focus of these discussions is that it leads to a sense of
    fatalism, like there's nothing we can do, or it leads to
    measures that are absurdly misaligned to the nature of the
    problem.
        So, for example, in 2020, in the midst of the worst fire
    season of California history, just unimaginable suffering, the
    Governor, Gavin Newsom, came up with a grand solution, which
    was to ban gas-powered cars. This is actually what he did. His
    reasoning was, the cars cause emissions, which cause climate
    change, which cause the fires; therefore, we just need to ban
    the cars. In fact, followed up with a ban on trucks, on trains,
    even on lawnmowers and leaf blowers.
        So, Mr. Ring, in your opinion, what is the most effective
    strategy when it comes to fire prevention? Is it banning cars
    and leaf blowers or is it reducing fuel through things like
    prescribed burns and strategic tree removal?
        Mr. Ring. Well, the answer to me is obvious. You're not
    going to have any sort of short-term impact certainly or even
    long-term impact if the rest of the world doesn't do the same
    thing with respect to whatever the theories may hold with
    respect to greenhouse gas and climate change.
        What you can do is bring back logging, bring back grazing,
    and also mechanical thinning, which would be effective in the
    chaparral and out on the steep hillsides. You can do mechanical
    thinning, and you can do grazing. There's equipment that can do
    that nowadays. Of course, grazing, they've been able to do that
    for millennia.
        Bringing back logging, thinning, grazing, and prescribed
    burns is the solution. A lot of that can be done commercially,
    which would actually generate tax revenue and good jobs instead
    of costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
        Mr. Kiley. By the way, which is more effective at reducing
    or limiting emissions, those sorts of fire prevention measures
    or banning certain consumer goods?
        Mr. Ring. Well, I banning consumer goods has almost no
    impact on emissions compared to being able to properly manage
    our forests and wildlands.
        Mr. Kiley. In fact, wasn't there a study showing--and, Mr.
    Greenhut, I think you can speak to this--that in the 2020
    fires, the emissions that were let out there was twice as much
    as any savings California had for, what was it, the previous
    16--
        Mr. Greenhut. Sixteen years. We're undermining any gains
    we're making in every wildfire.
        Mr. Kiley. That's right.
        I'll just close by pointing to an example that was brought
    up earlier. My district was hit by one of the most devastating
    fires in State history where hundreds of people lost their
    homes in Grizzly Flats. That fire might not have happened or
    been as severe as it had been if it had not for delays through
    CEQA and NEPA with a forest management project that had dragged
    on for years and years and years.
        On the other hand, the fire was limited from going into
    South Tahoe because of the categorical exclusion that Mr.
    McClintock spoke of in the Christmas Valley. You had the fire
    that might not have started if we had done our job properly.
    Because we had this narrow form of relief, at least we were
    able to stop it from spreading even further.
        I think that that is the recipe for how we can reform these
    policies and restore some common sense going forward.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for
    appearing before the Committee today.
        Without objection, all members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
    and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
    Committee/
    Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117864.

                                     [all]