Weather keeps Calif. fire in check
OAKHURST, Calif. — A wildfire that forced about 1,000 people from their homes in the foothills near Yosemite National Park held steady on Tuesday as humidity and calmer winds aided the fight against the second blaze around the park in recent weeks.
The fire in Madera County remained at a little under 2 square miles but had destroyed eight structures and was threatening about 500 homes around Oakhurst, a community of several thousand about 16 miles from a Yosemite entrance, fire and sheriff's officials said.
Additional firefighters were brought in to attack the blaze that began a day earlier and was fueled by gusty winds and dry brush, with embers flying ahead up to half a mile.
“We're not seeing the fire expand like we thought,” Madera County Sheriff John Anderson said.
Mandatory evacuation orders were in place for about 1,000 people, and 4,000 were told to prepare to leave their homes, sheriff's spokeswoman Erica Stuart said.
The park was not affected.
It's California's third straight year of drought, creating tinder-dry conditions that have significantly increased the fire danger around the state and sent firefighters scrambling seemingly nonstop from blaze to blaze.
Evacuated residents in Oakhurst braced for the worst.
“There is nothing you can do when a fire is raging,” said Clement Williams, 67. “You just have to flee. It's a real sinking feeling.”
Oakhurst was smoky, and businesses downtown were closed as the fire burned about a mile away.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- McCarthy withdraws candidacy for speaker
- House Democrat files ethics complaint over Benghazi investigation
- California vineyards skip irrigation amid drought
- Gas leak suspected after Brooklyn blast kills 1; safety measures eyed
- Hillary Clinton kept in touch with key donors, emails show
- Benghazi transcript on way, defying GOP leaders on committee
- Feds, states announce $20B agreement with BP on deadly gulf oil spill
- About 6,000 drug inmates await early release from prison
- Obama apologizes for hospital attack
- Bipartisan coalition works to revive Ex-Im Bank
- GOP-led House authorizes special panel to investigate Planned Parenthood