RURAL AMERICA BURNING
A passerby traveling a barren country road in the early morning darkness is the first to notice it: a glow in the sky that could be seen for miles. He crests a hill and sees its origin—a large building fully involved in fire. Fifteen minutes later when members of the local volunteer fire department arrive, their training and equipment are of little help— the building already is on the ground, a heap of flaming ruins. Thankfully, there was no wind, or exposures would have been on fire also.
Unusual? Maybe not. This fire, however, caused the deaths of hundreds of livestock and the destruction of a large building. The cause of fire was a short circuit resulting from a “do-ityourself’ wiring job. “It was the cheapest way,” the building’s owner later explained.
So here you have it: a large life loss and the destruction of a large building caused by an electrical code infraction. An incident of this magnitude should make headlines all across the United States, yet it didn’t even make the headlines of the local paper. Such fires are so common in rural areas that they often receive little attention. The farmer who incurs the loss is temporarily devastated, but the attitude of the agricultural community is that these losses go along with the occupation.
Serving in a rural fire jurisdiction — the Garrison (IA) Fire Protection District—I have experienced what I perceive as a drastic fire problem involving farm buildings in rural areas. I often have wondered about the magnitude of this “problem”: What exactly causes these fires in farm buildings? What is being done about them? W hat can be done about them? Some of my questions were answered as I conducted a search for the research project requirement for completion of the “Strategic Analysis of Fire Prevention Programs” course at the National Fire Academy.
RURAL DISTRICTS
An understanding of the rural fire protection districts in which these fires occur is necessary before this fire problem can be seen in perspective. The district 1 serve as executive fire officer is probably as representative of a rural fire protection district as any. The Garrison Fire Protection District is a small, predominantly rural, agricultural community with a population of fewer than 1,000 people. The 55square-mile rural area of the district contains approximately 190 farms, each with an average of six structures. One structure generally is a dwelling; the remaining buildings are used for various agricultural purposes. In comparison, the city of Garrison, which is within the district, has approximately 200 structures (most of which are dwellings), housing a population of 300 people.
Ninety percent of all the structures in the city of Garrison and the surrounding rural area of the district are of wood-frame construction. Buildings in the district’s rural areas for the most part are old and commonly are fraught with fire hazards resulting from poor planning and substandard construction. Fire protection in the district is provided hy a contingent of dedicated volunteers operating the Garrison Fire Department on a taxation budget assessed at the rate S.40 per S 1,000 of property value. Rural alarm response times in excess of 10 minutes are not uncommon.
Fire protection in the Garrison district is typical of that all across Iowa. Fighty-thrcc percent of Iowa’s 880 fire departments protect a population of fewer than 5,000, and 65 percent of the fire departments cover districts ranging in size from 66 to 100 square miles. Thirty-nine percent of the state’s population live in the rural areas protected by these fire departments. Beyond Iowa, the midwestern and other states have large agricultural areas that have similar demographics and associated fire problems.
HOW LARGE IS THE PROBLEM?
Farm building fire loss in the Garrison Fire Protection District, for the eight-year period from 1984 to 1991, represented 43 percent of the total fire loss. Less than 10 percent of the fires in the district occurred within the incorporated city of Garrison. In the state of Iowa, an average of 16,200 fires and an average total fire loss of $55,582,000 were reported for the five-year period from 1987 to 1991. These figures include an average of 1,176 fires involving agriculture structures and agricultural products storage structures reported annually; annual average total fire loss to these structures was S8,369,854. These statistics represent seven percent of Iowa’s reported fires and 15 percent of reported fire losses.
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, the total reported direct fire loss for the year 1990 was $10.4 billion. This was for 2.1 million estimated fires that included 5,800 civilian fire deaths; 25,000 civilian injuries; 107 fire service deaths; and 35,000 fire service injuries. There were 23,092 reported fires involving agriculture and agricultural products storage structures, with a total loss of S127,288,105. Nationally, this accounts for approximately one percent of the reported fire loss.
When the statistics are analyzed within the broader context, the fire loss to farm buildings may appear less serious than the problem actually is. The statistics, however, may not accurately depict the scope of the problem, and the rural fire departments themselves may contribute to this distortion. In Iowa, for example, more than 40 percent of the state’s fire departments are not reporting fires, and nationally only one-half of the fires that occur are reported. According to the Iowa fire marshal’s office, the majority of fire departments not reporting fires are from the small jurisdictions protecting rural areas. This also may be true with respect to the entire United States. We, therefore, do not have an accurate depiction of just how large the farm building fire problem really is. Such complacent reporting has the greatest impact on U.S. fire loss statistics, which then definitely do not reflect the true extent of the rural structural fire problem.
The magnitude of the rural structural fire problem is shown in a more relevant light in other sources. Successful Fanning Magazine in 1990 polled its readership and found that one-third of its readers (farmers and others associated with agriculture) at some time during their involvement in farming had experienced the loss of a building to fire or collapse. Thomas J. Klein, in the September 1984 issue of Fire Journal, noted that the average fire loss in larger cities is S15 per year per person and $30 per year per person in the smallest rural areas —a rate twice as high as that of the cities.
WHAT CAUSES THESE FIRES?
The most common causes of fires occurring in farm buildings (excluding residences) in 1990, according to statistics from the National Fire Incident Report System (NFIRS), were incendiary and suspicious (9.4 percent), misuse of heat of ignition (30.2 percent), mechanical failure or malfunction (14.4 percent), design/construction/installation deficiency (4.2 percent), operational deficiency (5.7 percent), and natural conditions (5.5 percent). Two other more specific causes worth noting are those involving inadequate control of open fires, accounting for 21.8 percent of the fires, and fires originating from electrical equipment, accounting for 10.6 percent of the fires. Of the reported fire losses in state and national information, agricultural structures with the highest financial losses were barns and buildings involving cow and cattle production; pig and hog production; crop and orchard storage; and seeds, beans, nuts, and silage storage in bulk.
Such data gathered from fire department incident reports document reasons for the inception of rural fires but not the conditions existing in rural farm buildings that precede and significantly contribute to the ignition. As early as 1962, researcher Robert C. Yeck recognized that very few farm buildings were subject to fire codes. This situation has not changed in the past 30 years. Researcher Gerald Bodman, of the University of Nebraska, found in 1990 that although building and fire safetycodes are intended to apply to all structures, practices within the agricultural construction industry generally do not reflect these standards. Bodman and LaVerne Stetson in 1990 inspected 41 structures on 12 Iowa and Nebraska farms. Using applicable building, fire, and electrical codes, they found that few of the buildings inspected “passed the test” and that those that failed housed massive code violations.
That the lack of code application in agricultural building construction is purely attitudinal and probably ultimately financially motivated is reflected by the reply given by a sales representative for prefabricated swine confinement buildings to Bodman when asked about the substandard condition of wiring in structures the firm built. The representative simply replied, “Rural construction isn’t required to meet codes.”
Frederick E. Clark, in a 19H2 article, said he believed that rural building construction receives less contract administration than comparable projects in an urban setting and that the degree of construction inspection in rural communities in many instances is minimal. “In the worst case, the owner constructs a building without benefit of any code enforcement official input whatsoever,” said Clark.
Also contributing to the alarming number of rural fires are the accumulated combustibles found inside of or adjacent to farm buildings. Carelessness, misuse of fire, and inadequate control of combustibles combine to increase fire hazards.
The impact of attitude and demographics on the rural fire problem has been researched by R. Michael Bowman, who in 1979 observed that “the tire service still relies on motherhood and emotionally based justification for developing fire protection in rural communities.” He found that fire prevention programs are extremely low priority or nonexistent in these areas. According to Bowman’s study, fire service personnel in rural areas are primarily volunteer and are attracted to the profession by the excitement of the suppression activity, not fire prevention. These departments, therefore, do not focus on the prevention efforts needed in rural areas. That a high proportion of fires occurring in rural areas can be attributed to inadequate control of open fires and misuse of fire is one indication that rural fire departments neglect their fire prevention/public education duties.
Yet, perhaps contributing even more to the rural fire problem is the fact that historically this problem largely has been ignored. From the following statement, it appears that even the individuals who worked on the landmark work America Bunting may have been unaware of the primary causes of rural fires: “The majority of states have adopted model building and fire codes as minimum building requirements. Many local jurisdictions supplement these state requirements by adapting their own codes.”
This statement may reflect the situation with regard to the municipal building environment, but it definitely does not apply to rural America. I could find no mention of the impact that construction and inspection problems have on rural fire problems in the United States in America Bunting or its sequel, America Burning Revisited.
IS ANYTHING BEING DONE?
In the municipal environment, officials and citizens would find firerelated losses as high as those occurring in rural areas unacceptable. In municipal jurisdictions, fire codes coupled with routine inspections by the fire department or other representatives of the municipality help reduce fire losses. In my research, I did not find any indication that annual inspection programs are being conducted anywhere in the United States for the specific purpose of curbing rural structural fire losses, except for the inspections of rural buildings conducted by some insurance companies. While such inspections certainly arc better than no inspections, a majority of sources interviewed for this article expressed the observation that many of these inspections are minimal in scope and fall short of uncovering code and building standard deficiencies in rural structures. Normally, an insurance company inspects a property only when the owner is changing insurance coverage, although some companies conduct inspections of some structures—such as swine production confinement buildings—every three to five years.
Some individuals, organizations, and institutions have developed fire safety guidelines for farm buildings, but this information has not been widely disseminated. Examples of such information include the “Do Your Part . Prevent Losses” guideline, produced by FARMUTUAL Insurance, and the “NebGuides,” which cover such topics as electrical system safety for agricultural buildings and farmstead safety. At least one entity, Midwest Plan Service, produces reference guidelines such as the “Farm Building Wiring Handbook” and “Fire Control in Livestock Buildings,” which describe approved construction practices for farm buildings in accordance with the National Electric Code and various other fire safety and building codes.
One impressive available guidebook for rural building inspections is the “Farm Inspection and Loss Prevention Manual,” published by the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC). The manual is a reference guide for inspectors in the insurance industry and covers inspections of residential heating systems, agricultural heating, flammable and combustible liquids and gases, electrical safety, lightning protection systems, hay fires—prevention and control, anhydrous ammonia safety, home fire protection, building materials and insulation, portable fire extinguishers in agriculture, chemicals, arson, agricultural building design, farmstead alarm systems, and guarding agricultural equipment. The shortcoming of this manual is that it is written from the perspective of insurance industry personnel, not the fire service.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
Researcher Paul Gunther describes the difficulties inherent in trying to resolve the rural fire problem: “…it is unclear which specific measures would have significant impact in rural areas. The problem presented is a real challenge to the fire community. Rural areas are inherently spread out and mostly protected by small, volunteer fire departments with limited resources to attack specific fire problems….Measures appropriate to larger communities may be ineffective in rural areas, or at least may require much longer time to show significant impact.”
Life safety codes. Although it is easy to propose solutions to the rural structural fire problem, the hurdles lie in the problems inherent in each solution. The greatest strides we could take with regard to rural fire safety are those that will be resisted most staunchly by the parties they will affect: adopting fire safety ordinances and enacting legislation. In municipal jurisdictions, adopting and enforcing such codes is commonplace, but virtually none of these activities are found in rural areas. It would be ideal if legal requirements to comply with life safety measures could be instituted on a national scale. These requirements, however, usually are implemented locally. If comprehensive fire safety codes encompassing rural areas are to become realities, the fire service itself must take the initiative in influencing legislators to adopt building construction provisions that apply equally to local and remote rural areas as well as urban and suburban areas.
Inspection programs. Whether such measures are adopted or not, fire departments must become more involved in establishing fire safety programs, especially regular inspections of rural agricultural structures. In the absence of laws and ordinances forcing compliance with these inspections, voluntary compliance by property owners is the best that can be hoped for. Fire personnel conducting inspections in areas lacking codes and ordinances must rely on diplomacy and tact to gain compliance from rural property owners. Gaining voluntary compliance may present a major obstacle, since rural residents tend to be quite independent. Public education programs can help increase the chances for compliance. Economics is another factor that can block compliance with regard to existing buildings. Many of the structures and complexes are old and contain significant fire safety infractions that would take a major investment to correct.
7raining. Another problem with regard to inspections is that most of these rural areas are protected by volunteer fire departments whose members are not adequately trained in how to conduct thorough building inspections. Municipal jurisdictions often are able to maintain full-time fire or municipal staff to perform this function. Their job is to understand and apply the fire and building codes. Most rural communities of the United States lack this capability. Volunteers often do not have the time to master the technical information contained in the building codes. They need a guide that provides simple, easy-tofollow inspection guidelines, such as one of the manuals 1 discovered during my research. It contains the rudiments of inspection guidelines and would be helpful to rural fire inspectors. The manual, however, is written from the point of view of the insurance industry and needs some modification. Attempts to get the publisher’s permission to adapt the publication for the fire service were not successful. Its rationale is that the manual is usable by the fire service in its present form.
I find it ironic that a national insurance organization would refuse an opportunity to cooperate with U.S. fire departments in their efforts to drive down fire loss claims by developing inspection programs for farm buildings. It appears that if the insurance industry were serious about curbing rural fire losses and improving fire loss ratios, it would recognize the benefits of the proposed rural inspection program.
Public education. Fire departments serious about their duty to control these fires that bring heavy losses must understand that to realize this goal, the public must be taught how to prevent the fires. A few isolated examples of conscientious efforts by rural fire departments to educate the public about fire prevention exist. Lack of time on the part of volunteers staffing most rural fire departments usually is the reason public education programs and inspection activities are relatively rare. Another problem, as previously mentioned, is that volunteer firefighters attracted by the glamour of firefighting are not interested in fire prevention and public education activities. One way to resolve this situation is to recruit community members for the specific purpose of being fire prevention agents for the department. Fire departments may find such individuals within the local school system or the business community or professional associations concerned with public safety and loss control.
Conquering the rural structural fire problem requires an active interest on the part of the fire service and collaboration among governing bodies, industry, and other organizations that are affected—from a safety or financial standpoint —by rural fire losses. The fire safety problem with regard to rural agricultural structures is not hopeless. It can be managed with regular fire safety inspections and public education programs, and significant reductions in the loss of lives and property at the local, state, and national levels can be achieved.
Meeting the objective of reducing fire losses in rural areas will take extensive effort, but the same has been true for fire prevention activities in other areas. If a concerted “movement” to reduce losses from rural fires is initiated and developed, we can achieve the dual victory of bringing the fire problem down to a scale that matches local fire protection capabilities and spares farmers the disruptive costs of these unnecessary fires.
Endnotes
America Burning: The Report of The National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, 1973 Richard E. Bland, chairman. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
America Burning Revisited. 1990. FEMA, USFA National Workshop, Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 1987.
Bodman, Gerald R., extension agricultural engineer-livestock systems, Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Telephone interview, May 28, 1992.
“Engineering Farmsteads for Function and Safety,” paper presented at Eastern Risk Inspection and Loss Prevention Short Courses, University Park, Pa., Sept. 11-15, 1977.
Farmstead Safety Evaluation Guide. 1992. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Bodman, Gerald R., LaVerne E. Stetson, and Jack L. Schlinstock. 1990. Electrical Systems for Agricultural Buildings (Recommended Practices). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Ibid (checklist).
Bowman, R. Michael. March 1979. “Rural Fire Prevention and Control: A Time of Awakening.” International Fire Chief pp. 10-12.
Clark, Frederick E. “Fire Safety in Rural America.” July 1982. Fire Journal: pp. 40, 107.
Gunther, Paul. July 1982. “Rural Fire Deaths: The Role of Climate and Poverty.” Fire Journal: pp. 34-39.
Klein, Thomas J. Sept. 1984. “The Rural Fire Picture: A Hidden Story.” Fire Journal: pp. 21-27.
Janusch, Lee Ann M. July 1981. “Survey Studies Rural Fire Safety.” International Fire Chief, pp. 17-19.
Farm Bu ildings Wiring Handbook. 1986. Ames: Midwest Plans Service.
Fire Control in Livestock Buildings. 1986. Ames: Midwest Plans Service.
Mowitz, Dave. 1990. No Farm Safe To Insure. Des Moines: Successful Farming.
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. 1990. Farm Inspection and Loss Prevention Manual. Indianapolis: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
Otteson, John. 1991. “National Fire Losses To Agriculture Structures and Agricultural Products Storage Structures for 1990.” Emmitsburg: United States Fire Administration.
Shipley, Karen. 1992. “Fire Losses in Iowa Agriculture Structures and Agricultural Products Storage Structures for Years 1987-1991.” Des Moines: Iowa Fire Marshal’s Office.
Yeck, Robert G. “Codes And Standards For Fire Safety In Farm Structures,” paper presented at National Farm Fire Safety Seminar, Huntley, II., Sept. 27, 1962.
