Los Angeles — as you read this — is burning.

For the better part of two days and counting multiple wildfires powered by hellish Santa Ana winds and fueled by man’s folly have zero containment.

It’s lingo Cal Fire and other fire agencies use that basically concedes the fire is 100 percent in control.

Do not think this is an us versus them issue.

Future fire insurance premiums in California will see to that.

The only difference will be the future degree of premium pain.

How we got here is quite simple.

Go look in the mirror.

This is man’s doing.

Perhaps nothing underscored that better than Palisades Drive did Tuesday in Los Angeles as the inferno unfolded.

Bulldozers had to be called in to push aside vehicles abandoned when their occupants were forced to flee a shower of embers when traffic gridlocked.

The cars had to be bulldozed out of the roadway to allow others to escape approaching flames and for firefighters to try and reach them.

The terrain in the Palisades Fire is riddled with narrow canyons.

They limit escape routes.

They also create ideal conduits to advance fires — up or down hillsides, it doesn’t matter.

And like all hilly terrain in California’s urbanized areas except perhaps in the City of San Francisco, there are large swaths of ridge lines.

On those ridge lines most of us see vegetation. Firefighters see fire fuel.

Man, beside limiting access and egress options when he builds in such areas, adds to the fuel.

Houses, more vegetation, plus items prone to explode and burn under intense heats such as fossil fuel powered cars or their “forever fire” cousins ­— electric vehicles with large battery packs.

We can have all the prayers and thoughts we want for those in fire zones on steroids thanks to urbanization, but it doesn’t do much to change the equation.

We need to stop being 100 percent stupid.

Given the fact there are almost 40 million Californians and we have climate and weather that has never been fireproof, we need to take things a bit more seriously.

Perhaps some of us will think twice about not adequately financing fire services with the amount of taxes we pay in terms of manpower and equipment.

Hopefully most of us will become more vigilant in keeping our fire risk involving our homes and property to a minimum.

No, major fires fanned by weather and climate conditions are not limited to the LA Basin, Paradise, the Oakland Hills, or some remote area near the Oregon border that most Californians never knew existed.

In 2017, the Tubbs Fire that ravaged Sonoma and Napa counties took out large swaths of Santa Rosa whose lost neighborhoods and commercial area looked as if they could have been in Sacramento or Modesto.

Closer to home, all it took was drying winds clocked at a steady 15 mph with dry roadside vegetation sparked by a passing vehicle to quickly destroy 36 homes east of Interstate 5 and north of March Lane in Stockton in the summer of 2008.

There were no drought conditions that year.

The point is major fires can happen anywhere in California and not just in forests or so-called wild land interface areas or just during droughts.

Yes, Southern California is currently in moderate drought conditions.

Please, however, don’t queue up the climate change card.

Man might be moving the needle a tad by the usual greenhouse gas emissions culprits, but what is driving the tsunami of late when it comes to wildfires is man ignoring longterm climate conditions in play for centuries and being stone deaf to the environment where we build.

Do not misunderstand.

People have to live somewhere.

There will always be fire danger.

That does not mean we have to increase the prospects of them being in greater frequency and intensity by doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results.

But then again, “retrofit” solutions absent of a fire disaster that wipes out an entire at-risk neighborhood to allow you to build back a bit more smart in terms of reducing the potential for a repeat can only go so far.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal’s real estate section dubbed “Mansion” showcased a trend  among the somewhat more heeled in fire-prone areas throughout the LA Basin.

The trend involved homeowners adding fire hydrants to their property at a lower end cost of between $10,000 and $20,000.

That price range assumes you connect to a municipal waterline and don’t need to install a fire suppression system that involves building a water tank and installing pumps.

It’s legal to do and homeowners must meet codes. 

The working theory, given no one is advocating homeowners play firefighters although some have who have training do just that, is a “personal” fire hydrant at your house will increase the chances of firefighters being able to save your house.

It might sound reasonable but if firefighters are overwhelmed as they are today in LA, betting the house on it turning out they way you’re hoping it will is wishful thinking at best.

It does, however, work to potentially reduce the risk of a home being ravaged by fire.

Insurance companies tend to like it.

If you invest $20,000 plus in a functional and maintained regulation fire hydrant, insurance companies may discount your premium.

It also apparently works well in attracting homebuyers.

An example is a sale listing for a 10,450-square-foot home in Westlake with an asking price of $14.955 million. 

It highlights the existence of an on-property fire hydrant along with Zen fountains, an indoor/outdoor walk-in wet bar, as well as alabaster onyx light features.

California has taken some steps to reduce the potential for devastating wildfires.

Shake roofs were banned in the waning days of the 20th century.

Starting in January 2011 all new single family homes and duplexes built in California were required to have fire sprinklers.

What hadn’t been done is stopping the urbanization of areas that are the perfect setting for destructive wildfires.

That includes terrain, prevailing weather conditions, and untouched swaths of vegetation that can combine together to make worst case scenarios significantly more likely.

And to be clear, by destructive we’re talking the loss of homes and lives.

Such areas don’t become ideal settings for what we call “natural disasters” until we build a significant amount of housing or do so in moderation but build them under towering pine trees or within clusters of scrub oaks with limited access.

The bottom line is California — just like Florida with its hurricanes — has allowed more and more people to live in areas that are a “natural” disaster waiting to happen.

What is happening in Los Angeles is the accumulative effect of development out-of-synch with the environment.

And if you expect the State Legislature to have the patience, fortitude, the  perception, and political will to change the trajectory then you are suffering from a severe case of California dreaming.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com