DesertDrifter -- if I were to build a place just on the plains (something I've thought about a lot), basic grassland area with few if any trees/heavier tinder anywhere immediately near the place and not many/much anywhere else around generally (also, of course, by its nature an ecosystem of periodic fires), I'd be damned intent it was sited and built so it would not ignite or otherwise be significantly impacted if a fire came through (at least provided no fool opened or left open any door or window as it was incoming/ongoing) -- not only not any combustible materials, but also only materials that could take the transient heat load and effectively keep it out of the interior, in/throughout (at least) the external/external-connected/core structure
so, I couldn't agree more that those who would build in those locations should take their own risks, period, or at the least should be rated for the hazard with new construction/remodels/rebuilds covered only under vastly stricter building/siting/zoning codes -- it's an entirely legitimate, legitimate to state and consider, factor that it is just plain nucking futs, aka 'not in the public interest', to at all encourage further development in such areas -- most certainly not by effectively subsidizing their property insurance coverages/shifting their losses to others as the system does now
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6