Senate Panel Examines Firefighting Costs

NATIONAL JOURNAL

 

CQ GREEN SHEETS
FORESTS; URBANIZATION
Jan. 28, 2007

Senate Panel Examines Firefighting Costs

By CQ Staff

A growing debate about the increasing federal costs of firefighting and the best fire prevention methods will begin to flare in the Senate this week.

Forest fires char millions of acres in the United States each year, burning indiscriminately across federal, state, local and private lands. Since 2000, the federal government has carried more than $1 billion of the costs of suppressing the fires, according to the Government Accountability Office. Several studies have suggested the Forest Service is carrying too much of the burden.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday will hear testimony on questions related to cost-sharing among local, state and federal jurisdictions and comparisons of firefighting and prevention methods.

Witnesses will include Nina Rose Hatfield, deputy assistant secretary of the Interior for business management and wildland fire; the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Mark Rey, the undersecretary for environment and natural resources whose portfolio includes the U.S. Forest Service; USDA’s Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong; and representatives of the GAO, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the Western Governors’ Association.

Who Pays

The boom in homebuilding in rural areas of Western states has significantly contributed to the increased cost of fighting fires, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Inspector General found in a report issued last November. The boom has heightened the need to defend areas of intermingled houses and forests — commonly called the wildland-urban interface.

But who should pay the costs of fighting those fires?

The GAO has spent many years bird-dogging the Forest Service’s cost containment and cost-sharing efforts and how federal agencies manage the federal firefighting program.

In its most recent report, the GAO said some federal officials are concerned that the current framework insulates states and local governments from having to carry the financial burden of protecting the wildland-urban interface. The GAO said that may reduce incentives for nonfederal entities to help mitigate fire risks, “such as requiring homeowners to use fire-resistant materials and landscaping.”

The USDA inspector general’s report, “Forest Service Large Fire Suppression Costs,” bluntly said states and local governments should pick up more of the tab.

The Forest Service’s “escalating cost to fight fires is largely due to its efforts to protect private property in the wildland urban interface” bordering Forest Service lands. And as a result, homeowners rely on the federal government to provide the service and do not have any incentives to take responsibility for protecting their homes and try to reduce fire risk, the report said.

Fighting fires in the WUI costs more than fighting fires in the backcountry. The inspector general’s report compared the costs of fighting two fires in Bitterroot National Forest in Montana: the Forest Service spent $7.2 million to protect structures from a fire in the WUI on 64,000 acres. But it cost only $710,000 to suppress a fire of similar size in a wilderness area of the same forest.

Giving priority to fighting fires in the WUI also can leave federally owned natural resources more vulnerable. The report reviewed one firefighting plan that resulted in the destruction of more than half of the activity areas for endangered species, as private property was given priority.

The report also said states and local governments should shoulder more of the costs because they hold authority over zoning and planning in the WUI areas.

Confusion Over Cost-Sharing

The GAO also found that cost-sharing arrangements among federal, state, local and other nonfederal firefighting entities “often lacked clear guidance for  . . .  deciding which method to apply to a specific fire.” So “cost-sharing methods were applied inconsistently.”

Federal officials told the GAO the lack of guidance makes it difficult to agree “on a method that all parties believe distributes suppression costs equitably.” Meanwhile, nonfederal officials said they worry that new cost-sharing methods are shifting a greater share of fire suppression costs to them. And both sides are concerned the inconsistent cost-sharing methods mean some states are paying a higher percentage of costs than others.

Stopping Fire Before it Starts

One way to cut costs would be to fight fire with fire, the USDA OIG’s report recommended. In the right circumstances, naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn accumulated brush and dead trees to decrease the accumulated hazardous fuels that might otherwise feed larger, more expensive wildfires, it said.

Of almost 80,000 fires that started naturally on Forest Service land from 1998 through 2005, only about 1,500 — or 2 percent — were allowed to burn, the report found.

“Consequently, [the Forest Service] may have missed opportunities to reduce the hazardous fuels that contribute to large, expensive fires, and may have unnecessarily spent millions of dollars suppressing wildland fires.”

Similar work has been done by the National Academy of Public Administration. In July 2005, NAPA’s Bruce D. McDowell told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies that, after six studies of wildland fire issues between August 2000 and January 2004, the think tank had become convinced the best way to save money on firefighting is before the fires ever start.

Factors that can reduce suppression costs include “creating fire-resistant communities, and defensible spaces, strategic fuel break systems that dampen fire progression patterns and make fires more manageable, and reduced fuel loadings in wild areas.”

“Once a fire begins, its course is largely predetermined by drought, weather, and [how and where it started] — plus the fuel that is in its path,” he said.

In the private sector, the insurance industry already has jumped on the fire prevention bandwagon as a way to reduce fire damage and homeowner claims. For instance, starting in 2003, State Farm Insurance has been examining at-risk homes under its coverage in four Western states, and in some cases has recommended that homeowners clear brush around their houses. Homeowners who do not comply are likely to find their premiums raised or their policies canceled.

Budgeting

Witnesses also are expected to discuss the problems created by a system that allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, which handles the Interior Department’s firefighting, to borrow from other program accounts once firefighting costs have exceeded the amount appropriated.

NAPA’s McDowell told the House Appropriations panel, “Something needs to be done to break the too-frequent cycle of borrowing from hazard mitigation funds (and other land management programs) to fund suppression activities that run over-budget  . . .  these borrowings were very disruptive, unpredictable and counterproductive.”

• U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector general’s report (pdf)

• Government Accountability Office report abstract on wildland fire suppression, June 21, 2006

• Government Accountability Office report abstract on wildland fire suppression, May 30, 2006

• National Academy of Public Adminstration studies

Source: CQ Green Sheets
The latest news, analysis and legislative action on energy and environmental policy.
© 2007 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

 

======================