Episode 67: Wildfire and Water Infrastructure
“Urban water systems aren’t equipped to fight wildfires and haven’t been expected to do so
”
“There’s water, there’s disaster, there’s power and climate change in the background of everything. So it’s a really complex set of things that communities are going to have to decide for themselves and then you end up with these equity issues
”
A conversation with Drs. Greg Pierce (UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation) and Faith Kearns (ASU Water Innovation Initiative) about water infrastructure before, during, and following wildfires. Released January 24, 2025.
guests on the show
Gregory Pierce
Dr. Greg Pierce (he/him) is the co-director of the Luskin Center for Innovation and the director of the Human Right to Water Solutions Lab within the center. He is also the co-director of the UCLA Water Resources Group within the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, and serves as faculty in the department of urban planning. Since joining the Luskin Center in 2015, he has been instrumental in guiding the Center's leadership to produce rigorous, engaged research which informs Human Right to Water policy in California, as well as across the United States. He has authored 50+ peer-reviewed journal articles and numerous major research reports. His broader research interests lie at the intersection of public finance, infrastructure planning and environmental justice. Greg holds a PhD in Urban Planning from UCLA. Learn more about Dr. Greg Pierce here.
Faith Kearns
Dr. Faith Kearns is a scientist and research communication practitioner. She writes and talks primarily about water, wildfire, and climate change. Her work has been published at New Republic, On Being, Bay Nature, and more. Kearns' award-winning book Getting to the Heart of Science Communication: A Guide to Engagement (Island Press) is widely available. She co-hosts the award-winning Water Talk podcast with Mallika Nocco and Samuel Sandoval.
In previous roles, Kearns has developed science communication projects at the Ecological Society of America, served as a AAAS Science and Policy Fellow at the U.S. Department of State, managed a wildfire research and outreach center at the University of California - Berkeley, bridged science and policy advocacy efforts at the Pew Charitable Trusts, and led science communication efforts with the California Institute for Water Resources in the University of California's Division of Ag and Natural Resources/Cooperative Extension.
Kearns currently serves as the Director of Research Communication with the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative in the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory at ASU.
TRANSCRIPT
Mallika Nocco
Welcome to Water Talk. Today, we're doing a timely episode in response to the fires and the water-related issues they’ve been causing in Southern California. I was reading the news, like many others interested in these issues, and I came across Faith Kearns being interviewed about her work on water infrastructure and fire. Faith, along with Greg Pierce, who is also a friend of the podcast, co-authored a 2021 report that has gained attention recently. It made me think, “Why aren’t we talking to Faith about this topic?” So, we got in touch with her and Greg to discuss water infrastructure issues, including drinking water, related to the ongoing fires in California.
Sam, what are your thoughts on this topic?
Sam Sandoval
I’ve been in contact with many people affected by the fires. Later, we’ll hear that Greg has a close connection to someone who lost their home. As I was reading the report Wildfire and Water Supply in California (published in 2021), it really answered a lot of questions I had. What I liked about the report is that it’s framed in a question-and-answer format, which is a bit different from the usual topic-based approach. It also includes recommendations for actions to take before, during, and after the fires. I think this will make for a great conversation.
I want to acknowledge that many of our listeners may have been personally affected by the fires, and we want to offer our most sincere support during this difficult time. While we’ll discuss this scientifically, we’re also mindful of everyone’s feelings and circumstances. We hope this conversation will be constructive, and I know we all—myself included—are trying to learn and share as much as we can to help the situation.
Mallika Nocco
Absolutely, Sam. The entire country is thinking about this, and our hearts go out to everyone in California. This episode wasn’t planned, but after hearing from my closest friend in Kentucky, I realized we should be addressing it. That’s how this episode came together.
Now, let's dive into the conversation with Dr. Faith Kearns and Greg Pierce. We’re so grateful to have Greg back. He’s the Research and Co-Executive Director of the Human Right to Water Solutions Lab at the Luskin Center for Innovation at UCLA. His research focuses on the inequities in access to essential environmental services, especially water insecurity, and how infrastructure planning either perpetuates or addresses those inequities. We’re also thrilled to have Faith, who’s a co-host of this podcast and has worked extensively on this topic.
Faith and Greg co-authored the report Wildfire and Water Supply in California a few years ago, which laid the foundation for many of the questions people are asking today. We wanted to revisit that report and talk about the issues it raised. Welcome, Faith and Greg!
Mallika Nocco
To start, can you both tell us what led to the writing of the 2021 report and the process you used? It’s such an interesting project.
Faith Kearns
Sure, I can start with some context, and then Greg can add more details. I don’t think many Water Talk listeners know that I was the Associate Director of a Wildfire Research Center at UC Berkeley in the early 2000s.
Mallika Nocco
I didn’t know that, so I would assume others don’t either!
Faith Kearns
Yes! I worked with Max Moritz and Scott Stevens for several years. Our focus was primarily on building codes and fire hazard severity maps created by Cal Fire. In many ways, not much has changed in the last 20 years, but in other ways, there have been significant developments.
One of the big issues I started seeing, especially as wildfires became more urbanized, was the way fires would spread from wildland areas directly into urban areas. This shift was significant because houses themselves are now fueling the fire. People are often confused when they see vegetation around a burned house still standing while the house itself burns down to its foundation. The houses are the fuel.
The first time I really saw the potential for water infrastructure damage from wildfires was during the Tubbs Fire in 2017 in Santa Rosa. The fire burned hot enough to melt water infrastructure, which led to contamination with volatile organic compounds, including benzene. I realized that Santa Rosa couldn’t be the only place where this was going to be an issue. However, at the time, I couldn’t find much information on the topic. There was research on how wildfires affect ecosystems, like riparian areas, or how forest fires above reservoirs lead to siltation. But specific research on the impact of wildfires on water supply in urban areas was lacking.
That’s when I proposed this project, and we got funding for it in 2019, just before COVID hit. Originally, the project had a very different plan, but like most others, we had to pivot to an online format due to the pandemic. I’ll let Greg explain more about the workshop setup, as he and Peter really took the lead on organizing it. Our approach wasn’t just multidisciplinary, it was multi-sectoral, and that made a huge difference in the kind of pragmatic insights we gained from it.
Greg Pierce
Faith really set the stage well, and I’m glad to give credit where it’s due. This report was really inspired by the first public attention to the effects of wildfires on drinking water systems, private plumbing, and water quality. The Tubbs and Camp Fires really highlighted how little we knew about this issue.
The report focused on four broad aspects of the relationship between wildfires and water supply systems, and these issues are still relevant today. As Faith mentioned, we brought together a diverse group from various sectors and regions to make sure we captured a broad range of perspectives. This collaboration was key to the findings and recommendations we presented.
Sam Sandoval
Greg, thank you for being here. Faith, as I’m looking at the report, I was hoping you could discuss the effects of upstream wildfires on water supply.
Greg Pierce
Sure, I can start, and then Faith, feel free to jump in. First off, I should mention that I don’t conduct this research on the ground myself, but I do think that this aspect of the research has been the longest studied and is fairly well understood—though, of course, the relationships are evolving and becoming more severe. There are two broad ways in which wildfires impact water supply.
One is through erosion and the burning of ground cover and vegetation that helps retain water, which affects the quantity and regularity of water supply. The second impact is on raw water supply—the water that eventually becomes treated and delivered to urban centers. After a wildfire, this water is often contaminated, which complicates drinking water quality, potentially introducing carcinogens and volatile organic compounds.
For large water systems, this means they need to treat water more intensively, which increases the cost. It can be done, but it introduces additional costs and sometimes requires new technologies. While water quality issues can be addressed, it’s the other aspects of wildfire impacts on water systems that are more challenging. Faith, what are your thoughts?
Faith Kearns
I agree. This particular issue has been a focus for much longer, mainly because it’s so closely tied to water supply. Much of California's forest management funding has been aimed at protecting water supplies, and many of the largest projects focus on forests and reservoirs in mountainous regions. This work has been going on not just in California but also in Arizona and New Mexico. It’s a key issue.
However, during the workshop, it was interesting to see how the significance of this issue varies depending on where you are in California. As you move from upper watersheds into urban areas, the suite of issues changes. For example, LA’s water supply is somewhat disconnected from other water supplies in California, which adds complexity to the conversation. So, the importance of upstream wildfire effects on water supply depends on regional contexts, but it’s certainly a critical area of concern.
Mallika Nocco
That makes sense. For our national audience, would it be fair to say that, if you’re placing reservoirs in areas prone to wildfires, it would make sense to start thinking about the intersection of wildfires and reservoirs earlier on?
Faith Kearns
Yes, exactly. Water supply is incredibly valuable, and large-scale reservoirs in forested areas are common in places like California and Colorado. This issue isn’t limited to California—it’s pervasive across the U.S. The need to manage water systems with wildfire risks in mind is critical.
Mallika Nocco
Absolutely. Moving on to the second part of the report, which focuses on water supplier planning, I found it really interesting how the report frames different questions. One of those is about how water systems should finance firefighting efforts. This raises equity issues, particularly for smaller water systems that may struggle to leverage resources to support firefighting. Can you talk about that question and issue a bit more?
Faith Kearns
This has definitely become one of the leading questions. What should we expect from urban water systems when it comes to firefighting efforts? The conversation has evolved, especially in understanding the difference between urban firefighting and wildland firefighting. But I think one of the key issues here is how well-resourced a water provider is and the role of the fire service in that process. Should the fire service just show up and use the water, or should they be more involved in the water supply issues?
This is going to continue to be an ongoing issue, and Greg, you could speak more to the differences between water providers, especially in LA where we’ve seen some of these dynamics play out.
Mallika Nocco
Yes, and as we’re talking about this on the ground, are there ways you’re thinking about equity in relation to this issue now that maybe you weren’t considering back in 2021?
Greg Pierce
Yeah, I’ve been talking about this more than I ever thought I would, and I know Faith has too. For the last two weeks, we’ve been discussing the core question about how urban water systems are supposed to function in the context of wildfires. It’s become politicized at local, federal, and state levels, and there’s been a lot of misunderstanding. I think most people don’t pay attention to how water systems work, and that’s understandable—just like I don’t know how my cell phone works. But there’s been a lot of misinformation. Experts in both water supply and firefighting agree: urban water systems are not equipped to fight wildfires and have never been expected to do so.
A big part of this issue ties back to the question of how to fund wildfire preparedness. Water systems aren’t equipped to fight wildfires because most people believe no amount of water would have stopped these wildfires. Water supply is just one factor in a much bigger equation. But the other part of the issue is how much we’re willing to pay to make water systems more robust, and that involves adding more water supply and infrastructure—more tanks, pipes, and reservoirs—and ensuring backup power to support these systems when wildfire conditions compromise power or pressure.
I also want to highlight the two major fires in LA, which affected at least eight different water systems—there are 200 in the county and 3,000 in the state. LA isn’t that much more fragmented than other places. The two big fires, though, had very different stories. The Pacific Palisades fire, for example, is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the biggest water system in the state. The Palisades area serves just 0.6% of LA’s population, but it’s a difficult area to service because of its hilly terrain and lack of its own water supply. Plus, there’s a large wealth disparity in the area. When it comes to rebuilding, there are huge equity questions about whether the costs should be shared across all of LA or borne by the residents of the Palisades.
Sam Sandoval
I was also thinking about how water systems can be supported to maintain power and continue supply during a fire. You had a great discussion about the role of backup generators and the access of personnel during a fire, especially since they’re not firefighters and could be exposed. Can you elaborate on that?
Faith Kearns
Yes, those were some of the first questions we started discussing with journalists. While the broader issues are still somewhat unclear, there are some things we know for sure now. One of the biggest questions has been about power supply. We touched on the issue of backup generators in the report because infrastructure can be damaged or lose pressure, especially when trying to move water uphill. Power supply issues are definitely going to continue to be a big issue moving forward.
Power safety shutoffs are another controversial tool that’s been used to prevent fires, but they have significant knock-on effects—especially on water supply. The LA Times did a great piece detailing what happened at LADWP during the fires, and it seems that depressurization was a big issue. There’s also the question of where to site backup generators, like diesel generators, which have air quality concerns. Diesel is the go-to option, but it’s not ideal, and there are concerns about the environmental impact. Overall, there are just so many factors to consider, including personnel access and fire service safety, which were complicated by the extreme wind conditions. It was unsafe for firefighters, let alone water system workers.
Greg Pierce
Yeah, I think there are three major levels to this issue, and Faith’s covered a lot of it. First, there are two different power suppliers at play in these two big fires. LADWP, as its name suggests, provides both water and power. So, during the Palisades fire, they kept the power on, which wasn’t an issue, but there are other investigations going on regarding whether LADWP’s infrastructure caused the fire, though it seems unlikely. In contrast, in the other fire, Edison was involved, and power shutoffs were much more common, which contributed to pressure issues.
Historically, water systems have relied on backup diesel generators, but these are bad for the environment. There are other types of generators being discussed, but there are questions about the mobility and fire resistance of those as well. Some systems are looking into solar and battery storage to support water supply, but again, there are questions about the functionality of these technologies. Batteries, for example, have caused fires themselves, as seen in a recent fire in Moss Landing.
There’s no easy answer here. Water, unlike power, is not as responsive to demand changes. We can’t quickly adjust water supply the way we can with power, but we can make progress with more investment and innovation in this space. Unfortunately, governments have backed off from investing in water infrastructure for decades, which is a big part of the problem.
Mallika Nocco
So Greg, can I ask a follow-up? When you say that water can't be demand-responsive in the same way, is that related to the same comment that you made about how there would have never been enough water to fight these fires? Or are those two different issues?
Greg Pierce
I think they're related. Obviously, if you actually had an infinite amount of water in a local space that you could deploy onto a fire, you could stop it. But yeah, any reasonable amount of infrastructure that actually fits into space with personnel there to fight it—then the issue of demand responsiveness, and especially how quickly you can move water, came up again. It was heavily politicized from reservoirs that are in the region, but are 50, 150 miles away from the point where you need the water. And then, again, you have the pressure to get it out onto the landscape. That’s where demand responsiveness and technology and its deployment really matter. So I’m talking into both sides of my mouth, and I wonder if Faith would like to weigh in on that.
Faith Kearns
I think it's a really tough issue. San Francisco has this very interesting water supply system called the emergency firefighting water system. San Francisco also has a fascinating fire history, primarily due to the 1906 earthquake that set the city on fire. A lot of our modern building codes, especially urban fire-related building codes, stem from that incident because many wooden buildings caught fire, leading to a chain reaction. This caused a big shift in fire safety measures, such as building codes designed to prevent fire from spreading from one structure to another. For example, in larger buildings, there are fire doors to limit the spread of fire, especially in places like hotels.
As a result of the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco invested in a parallel water system, which is essentially a disaster relief system. It’s a whole network of water resources, with cisterns and reservoirs throughout the city. This system also has the ability to generate high-pressure water, which is important during emergencies. So when I think about what a potential model for this type of system could look like, San Francisco’s is a very interesting one.
This idea ties into some of the resource issues that Greg was talking about. We could do a lot of this, but it would be very expensive. That leads into the question of risk tolerance: how much money are we willing to invest to save ourselves in the event of a low-probability disaster? I’m not sure what the exact probability is, but you understand what I mean. So, there are going to be some big questions for communities about how they decide on their risk tolerance for such situations.
Another challenge I’ve been thinking about, especially regarding the Palisades fire, is that a lot of insurance companies now require homeowners to install outdoor rooftop sprinklers to protect against fires. The general advice is for people to water down their homes and fences, especially in fire-prone areas. But the issue arises when many people have these systems, either automated or manually operated, leading to a surge in demand for water. This can overwhelm the system, especially if there isn’t enough water pressure to pump it uphill. These are smaller issues, but they really highlight the complexities of our fire prevention and water systems.
Ultimately, this is a complicated problem. It involves water, disaster management, power, climate change – all these factors are interconnected. And in the background, there’s the issue of equity. These are questions that communities will have to navigate for themselves.
Sam Sandoval
It is complicated. This goes perhaps to the following part of the reform relating to water supply, fire, and housing. And in this case, now that communities will come back, how can displaced communities access affordable housing and essential services? And then, are we going to do something different with the fire codes and building codes, right? And you mentioned in the report that this is a tall order to have affordable housing and at the same time fire-resistant housing, which, I mean, sometimes it is conflicted. So anything that you can talk about this affordable housing, essential services, and how this will come for all the displaced communities?
Greg Pierce
Yeah, I’d say that, in some ways, we haven’t really talked about the water aspect of this conversation. We’re discussing affordable housing and displaced populations, and there are numerous issues in LA. The city was already dealing with an unaffordable housing crisis, and now, of course, the supply and demand imbalance has worsened. There are people trying to take advantage of the situation by charging high rents. However, we haven’t focused much on the water aspect, which is very much tied to the housing crisis.
There are issues with emergency water distribution and bottled water, and whether these resources even reach those who need them most. Often, they don’t, which is something that needs more attention. Another concern is infrastructure for temporary housing units. Many displaced people can’t find alternative private housing, so they’re placed in temporary shelters, which often include manufactured homes or mobile homes. These units have specific water supply needs that aren’t always adequately met.
Sam, you’re probably familiar with some of these issues, but the most significant challenges are going to be around the cost of rebuilding, especially the structures themselves. Rebuilding them to meet current codes is already a contentious issue. There have been discussions about doing this, but it’s a more expensive undertaking now than it would have been 30 years ago due to inflation. Plus, we’re talking about fire-resistant structures, which adds another layer of complexity.
While I’m not qualified to discuss the cost of fire-resistant versus non-fire-resistant buildings, Faith is. Additionally, if we focus on creating water and sewer infrastructure that is resilient to future fires, we face further costs. We also need private properties that can fight fires without draining public systems. All of this increases the expense, especially when contractors are scarce, and there is price gouging.
These are some of the issues we’re facing, and many of these conversations haven’t fully played out yet. But I do want to turn it back to Faith, particularly on the topic of fire-resistant materials.
Faith Kearns
Definitely. One thing we haven't touched on yet is post-fire water contamination, which is another major issue. We’re already seeing this emerge, and unfortunately, it will continue to affect people in LA for quite some time, given past experiences with other fires.
From a building code perspective, it's a bit of a patchwork. California has its own building codes, like Chapter 7A, which addresses wildland fire safety. These codes cover several major categories, like how to cover vents in your roof, among other fire safety measures. However, the main issue is that it doesn’t apply everywhere. California’s building code only applies in the very high fire hazard severity zones, and these zones don’t cover most urban areas. These zones apply where Cal Fire provides fire services, so you can start to see the patchiness of the fire service as well. There are county firefighters, municipal city-level firefighters, the state, and the National Guard – all with different levels of firefighting responsibility.
The way building codes were decided upon was very much based on maps that are, unfortunately, still political. Many people worry that if an area is classified as high-risk for fire, it could decrease the value of their property. Additionally, cities are often reluctant to implement stricter codes because restricting development can reduce the tax base. So, it’s difficult to envision building codes completely saving us.
Within this framework, cities can opt to meet the state standards or even exceed them. Over the past few years, Steve Quarles, an emeritus at UC ANR, has done some of the best work in the country on this issue. He’s focused on the idea of an ignition zone, which is the area within 0 to 5 feet of a house. This has become an essential piece of fire prevention. We used to focus on a 100-foot buffer around the house, looking at vegetation and other factors. Now, it’s more about addressing the immediate proximity to the house, which is critical in preventing fires from starting from nearby sources.
These building codes were originally developed with the idea of fire coming from outside the house, which is still relevant, but the concept of one structure catching another structure on fire wasn’t a primary consideration. These codes were designed more for the rural-urban-wildland interface, where the focus was on managing vegetation around the house.
There’s a lot of useful guidance in these codes, and if homeowners can proactively make changes, some of these measures are relatively inexpensive. For example, installing hardware cloth to cover vents (a six-inch square of mesh) is a low-cost way to improve fire safety. However, some of the recommendations, especially within that 0 to 5-foot zone, can be challenging. For example, they suggest not placing anything against the house in this zone, including mulch, landscaping, flower boxes, or even a fence connected to the house.
This is where the expense can add up. One of the major challenges has always been retrofitting existing homes in California. It’s much harder to retrofit older homes for fire safety compared to building a new home from scratch that incorporates the current fire codes.
Mallika Nocco
And I guess, to follow up, Faith, you mentioned this briefly—thinking about, you know, retrofitting homes and considering building new ones. It seems we can apply those same ideas to the water infrastructure itself, right? Because that's a part we haven't talked about as much: the water infrastructure actually burning and then polluting drinking water with things like benzene. I think all of us are reading about that, but I'm curious, Greg, if you want to comment on that, or Faith, if you have any ideas?
Greg Pierce
Yeah, so, again, I think there have been some stories, but it has yet to fully play out. It will take months, or even years, for people to come back and test the water, especially in terms of drinking it. Right now, we have several systems—at least eight—affected, with several having “do not drink” or “boil water” notices. There’s some controversy over which is which, but regarding the actual infrastructure: the water system infrastructure has been compromised. This could be due to power outages where treatment couldn’t happen, or it could be due to infiltration into pipes or even pipes burning or partially melting, allowing all sorts of contaminants into the water.
For the larger systems, much of this can and will be flushed out and corrected relatively soon. But for smaller, medium-sized systems, we don't yet know the impacts. The longer-term issues are really about damage to plumbing or premise plumbing pipes on private property, which are the property owner’s responsibility, not the water system’s. Problems with plastic pipes, for example, can lead to complete burning or melting, introducing really nasty stuff into the water—nasty being a technical term. The water system doesn’t know what’s in everyone’s private pipes.
To address those issues—especially when moving back in or rebuilding, which I know are not always simple—you first want to follow the water system’s guidance. But to be sure your water is safe, especially if you're in or near a fire-affected area, you should test your water. This is hard to do and you need a lab-certified test for accurate results. Anything less is likely worthless, especially for these contaminants. You may need to replace infrastructure or, if it’s mild, you could use a filter.
I also want to mention that I get plenty of emails from people whose homes didn’t burn but who are concerned about contamination because they are near an evacuation zone. Often, that’s not true, but there's a lot of misinformation and disinformation. Even before the fires, people in Los Angeles had relatively low levels of trust in tap water, even though we generally have good water. These events have only deepened the distrust, and different agencies are responsible for managing the response. But there’s a general lack of trust in those agencies, and their efforts are often ad hoc and loosely coordinated. There are very few examples where these efforts have gone well, so agencies need to clarify and communicate better. We also really need nonprofit and community-based partners, trusted messengers, to help us in these efforts.
Sorry, I tried to be brief but I hope that’s helpful.
Mallika Nocco
No, that was helpful. So, Faith, I’m actually going to switch gears and ask you a different question. Faith, we always ask our podcast guests how we can support them. I’m going to ask you that in a different way because I’m looking at both of you and thinking about your book, Faith, and Getting to the Heart of Science Communication, and thinking about the impact that communicating about disasters has on communicators. I know the two of you have been doing this for the last two weeks, and I’m wondering, how can we support you as communicators? Or is there anything you want our audience to know about that role, especially since, in many ways, the work you do really came together in the past couple of weeks?
Faith Kearns
Yeah, I mean, you know, compared to someone who’s lost a house or something like that, I would definitely center the experiences of folks who are directly affected. But that being said, I have increasingly seen, over the course of my career, the unique role of vicarious trauma that comes from covering or speaking to these issues for over 20 years. It’s an interesting position because, as Greg and I have been in close proximity to the fires and affected by smoke, it definitely takes an extra toll.
But the more challenging part for me has been having foreseen these issues and worked on them for what feels like a very long time, only to see the problems keep getting worse. These are the same issues we saw 20 years ago, and there are people who have been working on them for much longer than me. For me, the question is: How do we actually move the ball forward so this doesn’t keep happening to communities multiple times a year?
Just for folks in my position, and I think Greg would agree, learning how to take care of yourself is important. For example, right now, I can’t read any stories about how people died. I’ve done a lot of that throughout my career, and some stories stick with you in ways that are not healthy to keep re-exposing yourself to. So, I’ve tried to adopt a bit of a detached role this time around, sort of like a surgeon who has to stay professional in the moment. It feels a bit strange to be unemotional about it, but sometimes, that’s just how it goes, and it’ll hit you at different times. But I do think that stepping in to help is important. Greg and I felt like we were some of the only people who had really looked into these issues, and it felt like a service obligation to share what we learned.
Sam Sandoval
Similarly, how can we support all the work you’ve done, and now, being personally affected in the community?
Greg Pierce
Yeah, I would echo everything Faith just said. My mind goes to supporting the relief and recovery for those directly affected. I hope it goes without saying. The second would be supporting the public process and recognizing the trade-offs and costs involved in rebuilding efforts. There’s room for critiques of public officials, but it’s important to consider not just what went wrong but how things can be done differently in the future. If you don’t have those ideas, trust the experts in the space.
In terms of supporting communicators, like Faith and I, I think we need more people to join in. I’ve been personally affected by this—my brother lost his house in one of these fires, so there’s a lot of personal motivation. But I think, more broadly, for researchers and others in adjacent spaces, please join us. We need more experts. Faith and I don’t want to claim the space; we just want to help. We need more people to be part of the solution, because we’re facing an uphill battle with climate change. These issues aren’t going away.
Mallika Nocco
Thank you so much, Greg and Faith. We really appreciate you taking the time and energy, especially the precious energy you're expending right now, to talk to us about these issues.