creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
25 Aug 2015
Heroism, American-Style

Every country has its heroes, but something in America's cultural sauce makes for a unique and unusually … Read More.

20 Aug 2015
Audience Members Are Getting Lousy Reviews

Broadway star Patti LuPone made headlines recently when she grabbed a cellphone from a woman texting in the … Read More.

18 Aug 2015
Sticking Up for Coke, Sort Of

Champions of righteous eating have been saying terrible things of late about Coke. They're now focusing their … Read More.

The Odd Politics of Fighting Wildfires

Comment

As wildfires plague much of the American West, one must ask, Who is paying to put them out? The answer is largely the American taxpayer. By that, we mean the taxpayers of Maryland, Tennessee and New Jersey — as well as those in California, Oregon, Washington and Montana, the states where the worst fires now rage.

Given this reality, we can also wonder at Western conservatives' passion for transferring federal lands to the states or into private hands. Do they really want the cost of protecting this considerable acreage placed on the shoulders of their locals?

Some Western politicians, such as Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, have thought this through. His state owns 5.2 million acres — the size of Massachusetts — and a good part of it is in flames.

"I could spend $40 million on fires alone," Bullock, a Democrat, recently told me.

Western conservatives should know that other conservatives are asking why U.S. taxpayers are spending so darn much money putting out their fires. And they are joined by environmentalists, who argue that the federal government's enthusiasm for suppressing wildfires encourages bad land planning and unnecessary tree removal.

About two-thirds of the cost of fighting wildfires comes out of the federal coffers, and the U.S. Forest Service accounts for the lion's share. Its fire suppression actives include both firefighting and fire prevention. For the first time this year, the Forest Service will devote over half its budget to wildfire suppression. By 2025, large wildfires could consume two-thirds of that budget, according to a new report by the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the agency.

A warming climate is adding size and intensity to the blazes — making them more expensive to put out. And there's a stiff human price: Three Forest Service firefighters died recently trying to contain a wildfire in north-central Washington.

But much of the Forest Service's fattening bill for suppressing wildfires comes from the rising costs of protecting isolated residences in the so-called wildland-urban interface.

About 10 million houses were been built in fire-prone rural areas last decade — on top of 6 million in the 1990s.

The building continues apace because of a growing desire for homes with nice views and proximity to national forests. And because the feds deal with the worst fires, the state and local governments approving this development have little incentive to curb it.

The federal government also has a variety of post-fire rehab programs. One helps rebuild the homes, 75 percent of which are uninsured or underinsured.

"Many say the insurance companies should be creating a moral hazard when they insure homes on the interface," Sue Stewart, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who was formerly with the Forest Service, told me. Homeowners in fire-prone zones should bear the costs of the added risk, not unlike those on flood plains.

Local governments can also assume more responsibility, writes Randal O'Toole at the conservative Cato Institute. One suggestion is "turning firefighting over to the states and paying the states the same fixed annual amounts per acre that private forest land owners pay."

O'Toole speaks approvingly of the federal Bureau of Land Management's policy of letting enormous wildfires in Alaska burn largely unattended.

In Berkeley, California, meanwhile, angry environmentalists are protesting a plan to lessen fire hazards by leveling over 400,000 eucalyptuses and other trees in the East Bay hills. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has offered to write the check.

In assessing federal fire suppression programs, one must distinguish between mindless budget cutting and thoughtless spending. As we can see, not always an easy call.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Wow, quoting the CATO institute. Now I am impressed. You should also check out how CATO evicerates the climate change argument. By the end, they make it seem like a fairy tale, which it is. Only an expensive one that wrecks the poor.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:59 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
Aug. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 31 Aug 2015
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 30 Aug 2015
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 29 Aug 2015

1 Jan 2009 Offshoring Is One Sure Thing

29 Apr 2008 Codependent Addicts: States and Casinos

16 Aug 2012 The Mixed Legacy of Helen Gurley Brown