That they are still taking about the same prevention techniques for decades is depressing. You would think a state home to some of the worlds best and brightest engineers could come up with a better solution to this than the same old tired argument of forest fire prevention and prescribed burns.
I volunteer in the Danish national emergency service. A year ago we and Multiple other countries went to Sweden to help out with massive forest fires. I'm talking speeding for an hour in varying levels of smoke and not be half way through our area.
I've never experienced fires like that, mainly since we dont have forests like that, but it became pretty clear to me how much the low vegetation meant for the life of the fire. The fire could be burning slowly through the ground vegetation and everybody would pretty much ignore it. But if it hit bigger bushes and spread to the treetops all hell broke loose. Others trucks were written off as a loss and personnel airlifted away on that account.
As for a newer approach they stragedly cut down parts of the forest, both for wood production and to vary the age of the forest. This seemed to have great effect when trying to contain the fire.
Why is forest fire prevention and prescribed burns an old tired argument? It's true that this approach is not new, but it's most likely the best that can be done. Dealing with the wildfires is not purely science and engineering. A huge part of it involves thorny political problems.
But all those engineers are busy building the high speed rail system that may one day connect Merced to Bakersfield. We make choices in a democracy.