Mallard Wildfire in Texas Grows to 100 Acres, No Containment Reported
The Mallard wildfire in Texas has grown to 100 acres, with crews reporting no containment, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 1:08 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 1:23 p.m. ET
Crews Report Containment on Mallard Wildfire in Texas
Crews have reported containment on the Mallard wildfire in Texas, according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The fire, which was discovered on August 20, 2026, has burned 100 acres and is classified as a Type 5 Incident. No containment percentage has been reported; crews report no containment, meaning no line has been held around the perimeter.
The cause of the fire has not been determined. The NIFC lists the fire as active in Texas.
Aug 20, 2026, 1:08 p.m. ETFirst report
Mallard Wildfire in Texas Grows to 100 Acres, No Containment Reported
The Mallard wildfire in Texas has burned 100 acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. The fire was discovered on August 20, 2026, and crews report no containment. The incident is classified as a Type 5 Incident.
The cause of the fire has not been determined. The fire is listed in the National Interagency Fire Center's data, which is the source of the reported figures.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 17:23current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 17:53current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 17:08current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.