The Gann Fire in Calaveras County has burned more than 9,000 acres, threatened hundreds of residents and destroyed at least two homes. The man arrested in connection with its ignition says he never intended for any of it to happen, and court records show this is not the first time he has faced charges for starting a fire.

Herbert Wayne Smith, 65, of Valley Springs, spoke with KCRA 3 in a one-on-one interview after posting bond.

His Account of Monday

Smith said the fire started on his birthday. He had hoped to earn money for a dinner with his wife by collecting scrap material, and was using a saw to cut scraps when the ignition occurred.

He expressed remorse directly, apologizing for everything that has happened and saying it was never his intent. He described himself as simply trying to put together some money, and said the situation escalated into something far beyond that.

He also acknowledged the personal consequences ahead, saying the incident is going to destroy his life one way or another.

The Charges

Cal Fire law enforcement officers arrested Smith for recklessly causing a fire, and the case has been forwarded to the Calaveras County District Attorney’s Office for review and possible prosecution.

Jail records list additional bookings related to causing a fire on a structure or forest land, allowing a fire to escape or spread, and operating machinery without proper clearance.

That final charge is worth noting. California requires specific precautions when using spark-producing equipment in areas with dry vegetation, including clearing the surrounding ground. The allegation suggests investigators believe those requirements were not met.

He was arrested at 8591 Hogan Dam Road at 7:43 p.m. Monday, several hours after the fire ignited. He has since posted bond, a fact confirmed by both Smith and jail records.

The 2018 Case

Documents obtained by KCRA 3 show Smith was charged on May 28, 2018, with a misdemeanor.

The charge alleged he willfully and unlawfully set fire to forest, brush or other flammable material on land he neither owned nor legally controlled, without permission from the owner, lessee or their agent.

According to the document, he was using a portable tool powered by gasoline at the time.

Court records show Smith pleaded no contest to burning lands of another and received 36 months of probation. The same records reflect a history of drug-related offenses.

The parallel between the two incidents is difficult to ignore. Both involve gasoline-powered equipment operating in dry vegetation. That pattern is likely to matter significantly in how prosecutors approach the current case, since recklessness charges turn on whether a person disregarded a known risk.

The Fire Itself

Cal Fire reported the Gann Fire began shortly before 5:30 p.m. Monday near the intersection of Hogan Dam and Gann roads, close to New Hogan Lake.

Crews have since begun establishing containment lines to halt further spread.

The damage has been substantial. Hundreds of residents have been threatened, and at least two homes have burned. The Calaveras County sheriff declared a local emergency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency approved federal funding to help California expand resources committed to the response.

As of Wednesday morning, more than 9,000 acres had burned. Cal Fire indicated that figure will likely grow, both because flames remain active and because crews are conducting controlled burns as part of the containment strategy.

Smoke has affected daily life beyond the fire perimeter. Calaveras County Unified School District canceled classes Wednesday because of air quality, and district officials said they will evaluate closures day by day.

Reckless Versus Intentional

The legal distinction at the center of this case is important and often misunderstood.

Smith is not accused of arson in the sense of deliberately setting a wildfire. Recklessly causing a fire is a different offense, addressing conduct where a person creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk and proceeds anyway.

Intent to cause the fire is not required. What matters is whether the person knew, or should have known, that their actions carried serious danger under the circumstances.

That standard is why the equipment clearance allegation and the prior conviction both carry weight. A previous case involving similar conduct makes it considerably harder to argue that the risk was not foreseeable.

What Happens Next

The immediate decision belongs to the district attorney’s office, which will determine what charges to file and at what level.

Several factors will shape that determination. The precise circumstances of the equipment use and whether required precautions were taken. The extent of documented damage, which affects both charging decisions and potential restitution. And how the 2018 case factors into the prosecution’s theory.

For residents in the fire’s path, the legal questions remain secondary. Containment work continues, air quality remains a daily concern, and the acreage figure has not stopped climbing.