• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Endorsements
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Ray Ford

    The author contributed many photos for our coverage of last year’s Zaca Fire.


    Charges Dropped Against Men Who Started Zaca Fire

    Judge Rules that Workers’ Actions Did Not Constitute Recklessness


    Friday, October 10, 2008
    By Chris Meagher (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    Five felony counts against the two men who sparked the Zaca Fire and the ranch they were working for have been dropped, according to the prosecutor in the case.

    Following a preliminary hearing—conducted in cases to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial—that lasted a few hours Thursday, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Zel Canter dismissed the felony counts against Rancho La Laguna LLC and ranch workers Jose Jesus Cabrera, 39, of Santa Ynez, and Santiago Iniguez Cervantes, 47, of Santa Maria, indicating the workers’ actions didn’t amount to recklessness. All the felony accounts alleged recklessness.

    The three defendants still face a misdemeanor that could result in 180 days behind bars, and an infraction that could cost them $1,150 maximum. The infraction is for allegedly not having a hot work permit and the misdemeanor is for alleged carelessness with a flaming substance.

    While recklessness is defined as a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do, the judge indicated that Cabrera and Cervantes brought a bucket of water and a shovel to offset the possibility of sparks flying into nearby dry weeds. The defendants had been charged with five felony counts of “recklessly causing a fire"—one count each for four of the many workers injured fighting the blaze, plus one for the burned forest.

    Cabrera and Cervantes had been working on a broken pipe leading to a water trough on July 4, when the fire began. Originally, while Cabrera was using a grinder on the metal pipe, Cervantes was using a shovel to keep sparks from flying. But when the embers started to get in Cabrera’s eyes, Cervantes took the shovel away, and the flying sparks eventually caused a fire in the weeds. “He was simply running sparks on dry weeds in the middle of summer,” prosecutor Jerry Lulejian said. “What else do you need to know that they were being reckless?”

    Normally, he argued at the hearing, workers would water down an area prior to working with sparks nearby, but they didn’t do it that day because they wanted to get home for the Independence Day holiday.

    Robert Sanger, attorney for Cabrera, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment, but had told The Independent last year that the two had cleared vegetation within 10 feet of their work area, “but the sparks flew further than expected.” They apparently tried extinguishing the fire with water, but because of their remoteness weren’t able to call emergency personnel. When they finally made phone contact, a Fire Department helicopter had already spotted the fire.

    Two investigators from the Santa Barbara County Fire Department testified during the preliminary hearing, according to Lulejian.

    The fire burned more than 240,000 acres—the second largest fire in California history— and took just under three months to contain. Firefighters kept the fire away from nearly all structures and private properties, but it burned through vast areas of the Los Padres National Forest. It was the largest fire in county history.

    No one died in the fire, but the blaze cost more than $115 million to fight, and several firefighters were injured fighting the fire.

    The matter will be back in Santa Maria court October 23.

    Related Links

    • September 6, 2007 Independent article “Charges Filed in Zaca Fire”
    Story Help (Click-ability)
    Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    So they'll each pay a $1,150. fine . . . I suppose that';s better than the execs of AIG, who're getting _paid_ for robbing the country blind. 'Course, they'd probably have a bit of a problem coming up with the rest of the $114,977,000.00 that the fire cost anyways.

    Justice is served!

    Next case?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    SamRedDog (anonymous profile)
    October 11, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    It's about time these poor guys were let off!

    I heard from numerous people in-the-know as far as fire information goes, that this disaster could have been contained early on, like the first or second day!

    Word has it, County fire officials decided to "let it run" because the fuel was too old and this was the perfect excuse to not contain. I saw one map they posted at the community info. sites that clearly showed a very narrow area on the northern boundary where this thing SHOULD HAVE been stopped.

    Remember, they had air suppression support from everywhere for this fire, including the DC 10 & they couldn't contain it. Come on!

    If this is the type of firefighting leadership & decision making brain trust we have in SB County, then I say then need to "have THEIR feet held to the fire" and answer some serious questions!

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    Barron (anonymous profile)
    October 12, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I wonder how the Taxpayers Assn. and COLAB feel about this? After all, this cost $115 megabucks of all of our money and direct injury to people, not to mention the untold costs of last year's dust-ash storms and the siltation of Gibraltar and Cachuma. If some Sierra Clubber had caused the fire, instead of a ranch and its employees, would these groups' response be different? Inquiring minds want to know!

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    GregMohr (anonymous profile)
    October 13, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    If-ta-beens-and-shoulda-couldas....

    These men were WORKING on the Fourth of July, for cryin' out loud! And had water and a shovel.

    Many times in this country, people need to find FAULT. This litigious attitude continues to be a divisive force in our country.

    Accidents happen. Even big ones.

    These men have been 'on the hook' for 15 months. Judge Canter made the right decision. Too bad so much money and time had to be spent by both the private sector and tax-supported employees in this poorly thought-out action by government officials.

    And being male, these defendants couldn't even get pregnant for their 'get out of jail free' card, as did the young white daughter of residents of Montecito in a recent case involving a DEATH.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    zamiac (anonymous profile)
    October 13, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Now, what the Sam Hill do pregnancy and Montecito have to with this?

    My question remains: if the fire had been started by a hiker or homeless person, instead of by a couple of ranch hands compelled to work on the highest of secular U.S. holidays, would heads be rolling, or would they also get a free pass? And what would COLAB, the Taxpayers' Assn., et al. have to say about it?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    GregMohr (anonymous profile)
    October 21, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Clear Sky
    Temperature:
    64.0°
    Wind:
    5 S

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Best Of 2009
    • 2009 Election Coverage
    • Wedding Guide 2009
    • Blue Green Guide 2009
    • SBIFF 2009
    • Tea Fire 2008
    • Local Heroes 2008
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • Within the Syuxtun Story Circle
    • Camellia Sasanqua
    • Whole New Ballgame
    • Gratuitous Gore on Highway 154
    • Saul Williams Brings Afro-Punk Tour to Velvet Jones
    • Where There’s a Dill, There’s a Way
    1. Travis Armstrong Is Outta There
    2. S.B. Bank & Trust's Rocky Year
    3. UC Campuses Dominate Rankings
    4. What buildings did architect Julia Morgan design in Santa Barbara?
    5. Sexile
    6. Rattlesnake and San Roque Side of Jesusita Trails to Re-Open Friday
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.