Fix Federal Fire Policy

California is once again enduring devastating wildfires, with blazes raging in five areas around the state, most ominously in the foothill suburbs of Los Angeles.

When the fires are finally contained, once again we will see everyone from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to small-town mayors to those unlucky enough to have lost their homes weigh in on the governmental response to the natural disasters. Were resources used appropriately? Was promised new equipment available? Did agencies work together seamlessly, for once?

These important questions will need to be asked. But it is also time for a much larger debate about the federal government's approach to wildfires. It needs a fundamental overhaul — and in 2007, the National Association of State Foresters provided the blueprint.

The most basic problem with federal policy is its counterproductive approach to budgeting with the U.S. Forest Service. Every time there is one particularly severe wildfire somewhere in the United States — which of late has seemed like every single year — the Forest Service has no choice but to grab hundreds of millions of dollars from other programs. This means defunding fire-suppression efforts that are absolutely crucial to reducing the risk of wildfires occurring and of minor fires turning into conflagrations.

State foresters say it is obvious that suppression funds be kept separate from an emergency wildfire reserve account.

But in their 2007 recommendations, they also called for strings to be attached to the reserve account, making it available only to states with aggressive programs to reduce wildfire threats.

Such a blunt approach is crucial to ending the blase attitudes that many states, including California, have about containing wildfires.

It is a simple fact that risks plunge dramatically in wilderness areas where scrub and other wildfire fuel are cleared regularly. The federal government should push states to make this happen. States, in turn, should pressure local governments to ride herd on property owners in medium- and high-risk areas to ensure proper clearing.

This approach to containing wildfire risk is much simpler, smarter and cheaper than such unlikely alternatives as banning new construction in all fire-prone areas or building and staffing thousands of new fire stations.

There appears to be a good chance that a House measure separating wildfire suppression and emergency wildfire funds will make it through the Senate.

But much more comprehensive reforms are essential. Were these fixes in place, the blazes terrorizing communities up and down the state would be far less threatening.

We hope California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and the rest of the state's congressional delegation can figure this out.

REPRINTED FROM THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM