Marijuana growers started California wildfires

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Serious bummer, dude. California's totally ablaze, and the cops are laying the blame on marijuana growers.

That's right. Investigators with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Narcotics Unit have confirmed that the camp at the origin of the La Brea fire was an illegal marijuana operation believed to be run by a Mexican drug organization. The suspects are currently on the lam and thought to be hiding out in the San Rafael wilderness, the U.S. Forest Service said in a prepared statement.

The La Brea fire first flared up east of Santa Maria, Calif., on Aug. 8 and has since burned 75,000 acres of chaparral, grass and timber. Last week, 234 houses were evacuated, but the blaze is now 25 percent contained, reports the Los Angeles Times.

As the U.S. has clamped down on cross-border trafficking, the cultivation of marijuana on public lands, including national parks, has become a serious problem. And while marijuana may be green, growing, harvesting and shipping it are not.

In 2003, Art Gaffrey of the Sequoia National Forest in California testified before Congress that in a five-year period starting in 1997, agents eradicated 3 million marijuana plants, or about 3,000 metric tons, on Forest Service lands. Gaffrey described the camps as being filled with "refuse, feces, fertilizers and poisons" and explained that the marijuana harvest was far from organic. Marijuana growers were also responsible for starting a wildfire in Sequoia in 1999.

Although medical marijuana use is legal in California, legal cultivation is limited to small-scale operations constrained by a patchwork of local laws. Depending on how you look at it, the ecological cost could be one more reason to ramp up the war on drugs—or to encourage decriminalization or legalization, bringing cultivation into the domain of environmental laws.

What do you think?

Image of marijuana plant courtesy Eric Caballero via Flickr

Brendan Borrell is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, Outside, Scientific American, and many other publications, and is the co-author (with ecologist Manuel Molles) of the textbook Environment: Science, Issues, Solutions. He traveled to Brazil with the support of the Mongabay Special Reporting Initiative. Follow him on Twitter @bborrell.

More by Brendan Borrell

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe