Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flood control district leads series on wildfire and insurance; experts urge parcel‑to‑neighborhood mitigation
Summary
Coconino County’s flood control director and Headwaters Economics experts told the Board of Supervisors that rising wildfire risk and insurer market responses are driving an insurance 'crisis' and urged coordinated parcel‑level and neighborhood mitigation, data alignment and insurer collaboration.
Coconino County officials and outside experts briefed the Board of Supervisors on June 3 on what county staff called a growing wildfire‑insurance crisis and launched a series of work sessions intended to shape local responses.
Flood Control District Director Lucinda Andreani opened the afternoon session by summarizing county experience with wildfire and post‑wildfire flooding and saying the county ranks among the most at risk nationally. Andreani said the county has seen an increase in calls from residents unable to obtain or afford property insurance in high‑risk areas.
Researchers from Headwaters Economics — Dr. Kimiko Barrett and Doug Green — gave a technical presentation explaining wildfire trends, how homes ignite and what local mitigation can accomplish. Barrett summarized national trends: wildfires are burning hotter, lasting longer and causing larger claims; nearly 30,000 structures have been damaged or destroyed by wildfire since 2005, and much of the cost is felt locally. She told the board that 46% of wildfire costs are born at the local level when short‑term response and longer‑term recovery are both considered.
Green described the three primary ignition pathways that most often lead to homes burning in large conflagrations: direct flame contact, radiant heat and embers lofted ahead of a fire. He said embers — not the main fire front in many cases — are the dominant cause of structure loss in recent urban conflagrations because embers can travel long distances, ignite many small fuel items (gutters, decks, stored materials) and create dozens or hundreds of simultaneous ignitions that overwhelm firefighting resources. On that basis he and Barrett stressed that ember mitigation — house hardening, replacing vulnerable roofing and screening vents — and coordinated neighborhood approaches are among the most cost‑effective ways to reduce loss.
The presenters and board members discussed local policy levers. Headwaters highlighted five “ingredients” for successful local programs: staffing and capacity (inspection and outreach), accurate data and parcel‑level tracking, consistent communication with homeowners, collaborative partnerships across public and private entities (including insurers), and funding or incentives for the work.
Board members and presenters cited community examples such as Boulder County’s Wildfire Partners certification and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) wildfire‑prepared home certification as models that pair mitigation checklists with insurer recognition. Board members asked how Coconino County could pursue similar approaches, align data and engage state regulators, and whether funding or loan products could help homeowners pay for retrofits.
Ending: County staff said this session is the first of several and that subsequent meetings will delve into financing, land‑use and community mitigation options; staff also plans to coordinate with state DIFI (Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions) and other partners to pursue solutions.
