Wash. warns company it may be liable for fire cost
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state has warned a construction company that it will be liable for property damages and firefighting costs if investigators determine its work started a wildfire northwest of Ellensburg.
The Washington state Department of Transportation notified Conway Construction Co. by letter on Friday that its contract makes the company responsible for safety at the work site, especially risks of fire.
The Taylor Bridge Fire is believed to have originated Aug. 13 at a bridge construction site near Cle Elum. The project is under contract to Conway Construction and its subcontractors.
The Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed its investigation into the fire's cause.
The fire blackened more than 36 square miles, or 23,500 acres, and destroyed nearly 100 structures. It was fully contained at the end of August.
The Washington state Department of Transportation notified Conway Construction Co. by letter on Friday that its contract makes the company responsible for safety at the work site, especially risks of fire.
The Taylor Bridge Fire is believed to have originated Aug. 13 at a bridge construction site near Cle Elum. The project is under contract to Conway Construction and its subcontractors.
The Department of Natural Resources has not yet completed its investigation into the fire's cause.
The fire blackened more than 36 square miles, or 23,500 acres, and destroyed nearly 100 structures. It was fully contained at the end of August.
Why does this company have a governmentally based requirement for fire suppression if the government requires no such thing for itself?
Their insurance company will most likely pay max and then company will file bankruptcy for the remaining amount owed. The taxpayers will foot the rest of the bill just like always.
Sounds like a bankrupcy filing in the works.
This comment has been deleted
The company should counter sue the state for forestry mismanagement. Â These giant and land sterilizing fires are the result of 100+ years of fire suppresion. Â Too much underbrush growth and too many trees per acre lead to the devastating fire we see now. The state needs to focus on home protection and off season controlled burns.
Â
Nice article:Â http://www.clackamasparkswildfire.org/docManager/1000000016/forging_a_science_based_national_forest_fire_policy.pdf
@Jeeper
The forest service, BLM, and DNR policies regarding fire fighting prior to the 1988 Yellowstone Fires was to let them burn their course, if they were started by nature. That fire grew so large they changed fire fighting doctrine after this. Following that 1988 fire, the policy was changed to fight the fires as they occurred, regardless of cause. I am all for natural process, but dont blame the state, and dont blame anyone but the contractor. I'd recommend you brush up on your history, It has not been 100+ years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_fires_of_1988
Â
Fact: they were required to have basic fire supression equipment on site and available for use. It is the contractor's responsibility in this case to have adequate fire prevention methods ready; and given the dry conditions, it should have been even more scrutinized
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-155&full=true#296-155-260
Â
Furthermore, it makes no difference whether the fire conditions were aggravated by policy dictating firefighting; the simple fact is, the contractor was careless and the situation should have been prevented. A fire can be started in a variety of conditions; but if care is excercised, then you can mitigate that.
 @northwestsurfer  @Jeeper http://www.washington.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5496
Â
Scroll down to read the dates, early 1900's when firefighting was used against forrest fires. Â Hence the "100+ years". Â While it is true that it is good to prevent the fires, fire is also good for the forrests. Â What is bad are the fires we see now that sterilize the land because of the amount of fuel they get into and thus burn hotter. Â There is more fuel mainly due to a reduction of seasonal fires and more diseased trees due to insects. Â
Â
National Geographic did a killer article a few years ago on forrest fires. Â They went into just how much more fuel is in the forrests now and what happens when fire does eventually burn that area. Probably why the Yellowstone fire was so destructive, as suggested by your wikipedia link.Â
Â
As for the company being sued, if they are liable, fine. Â Sucks to be them. I was going after the point that if that area may have been burned or cleared out in the last few years or so, it may not have run so fast.
Â
BTW, the house in the picture. Â The homeowners are foolish to let the vegitation get so close. Â The fire looks pretty low intensity and is doing it's job. Â Protect the house and let the grass burn.
 @Vegetal Plasma  @Jeeper  @northwestsurfer folks who live in burn zone need to do fire wise there propertys. remove ignition sources from around there propertys. then we could let mother nature burn the forests not our homes.
 @Jeeper  @northwestsurfer Jeeper,
Â
The site [the bridge & surrounding hillside]  was "burned or cleared out in the last few years" already.
Â
It has been the site of a couple of fires in the last decade; not as Big as the Taylor Bridge Fire.
Â
However, the immediate hillside above the bridge was an "Old Burn" already.
Accumulated ground fuel, hot dry conditions and high winds all contributed to how big the fire became.
Â
I am not refuting what you are trying to get across, yes man's suppression of the Natural Thinning process has aggravated the Wildfires of today.
Â
Just pointing out the area had already been burned, but a Perfect Storm of circumstances led to the  conflagration known as the Taylor Bridge Fire.
Â
The Contractor; welding on the bridge during the "Perfect Storm" was foolish; not having or utilizing fire suppression onsite, just plain dumb.
Â
I grew up in Cle Elum  & I was there visiting when the Fire Broke out.
Â
Â