Just for the sake of argument (suprise huh?), who should pay for this "thinning of underbrush" for the people who live in these fire prone areas? I hope you're not suggesting the tax payer of the state/country pay for it. I for one would like to see the residents of disaster prone areas shoulder most of the burden themselves when it comes to the thinning of brush, building of additional dams, etc. The revenue of course would come from their elevated town property taxes.

In addition to making the requirement of fire/flood/earthquake insurance mandatory for these residents, the state should toughen the building requirements/codes even further for the people who want to build in those trouble prone areas by making mandatory fire resistant roofs/building material, basement/septic tank levels 2 - 3 ft above highest recorded flood level (required in my state of Mass Title V cert.), and stronger wall construction in areas where tornados are the norm. All I can say is if you don't want to pay the additional cost to live in these known "trouble" areas, go live somewhere else. I'm required to carry fire insurance on my house (mortgage requirement), why shouldn't everyone else? These people shouldn't expect the state/country to pay for their misfortune from these natural disasters.