I think your insurance should reflect the risk of the hazard. If you don't have enough to clear the sight and replace the loss that is on you.
If you want to build your house in a setting that makes it more likely that you will loose it in a fire, close to trees and brush, that is on you, a risk you take. Your insurance rates should reflect that. No different than building a house in a flood plain. If I build a house within a flood plain at say the 10 or 25 year occurrence level it would be stupid not to expect to deal with a flood within that time frame. And yes, your insurance does reflect that.
In the wildfire per-planning CIM outlines there are usually plans to check the fire given the expected flow (considering variables). I don't think they should really spend a great deal of those limited resources trying to create a cold spot within that fire zone. The objective is to stop the fire, not to protect property within that wildfire area. Lives yes, property no.
My risk here from nature is very high wind or tornado. I do have enough insurance to clear my sight and rebuild. (My house was built in 1906 and is vastly stronger than the match boxes built today). So pray for the safety of my family and don't worry about my personal property, I got that covered.
Agree 100%. If someone want to build in a fire or hurricane prone are, I'm OK - but just don't expect me to pick up the tab in Federal assistance or higher insurance premiums on my home.
