Of all the examinations by the media that compare the evacuation and handling of the wildfire situation in California with that of Hurricane Katrina, the best I have seen so far comes from Dan Froomkin at Washingtonpost.com.
That large numbers of people have evacuated in California and much of the damage that has been done is at the core of the comparison. Yet such a juxtaposition is like comparing Moby Dick with Flipper. Katrina was much more the disaster than these wildfires have been, so far at least, in loss of life, property loss and evacuation. Even Hurricane Rita, which hit us here in Southeast Texas and was a one-day national media story, produced a much larger evacuation than in California and most likely the distances evacuees have to travel in California will likely be less than those of Rita or Katrina.
Another good point Froomkin makes is that California has more expertise with such disasters than did Louisiana’s government with its calamity. The truth is the national-local framework used for fire seasons and outbreaks is much better than it has ever been. We, in this country, are finally beginning to learn how to fight wildfires. Now if we will just stop fighting them and let some of these tinderbox areas burn to reduce the fuel load, catastrophes such as those in California may be less prevalent.
I know other comparisons are being made — about the evacuees of the California fires and those from New Orleans. While some sociological examination of the two incidents seems worthy, I feel a lot of the back-and-forth has deep racial overtones just as it did when people were discussing the goings-on in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. We just can’t seem to get past that can we?