Now that forest fires are in the news, someone noticed that President Obama has proposed a new way of funding wild firefighting. Instead of borrowing from its fuels treatment funds when the Forest Service exhausts its regular fire-fighting budget, Obama wants to let the agency draw upon a new “special disaster account” that is “adjusted each year to reflect the 10-year average cost of responding to such events.”
That makes so much sense, because treating excessive firefighting costs by giving the Forest Service more money is exactly like suppressing forest fires by throwing gasoline on them. In case you don’t hear the sarcasm, it makes no sense at all.
Obama is focusing on the wrong problem, the drawdown of funds intended for fuel treatments. The real problem is the incentives the Forest Service has to spend wildly on firefighting.
As far as I know, no democracy has given any government agency a blank check to accomplish any goal–except the Forest Service for fighting fires. Even the Pentagon was given budgets for fighting World War II, the Cold War, and other wars. But in 1908, Congress gave the Forest Service a blank check for firefighting, saying the agency could spend as much as it needed to suppress fires, and Congress would reimburse it later.
Congress repealed the blank-check law in about 1978, leading to eight years of relatively modest spending on firefighting. But after two serious fire seasons in 1987 and 1988, Congress reimbursed the agency’s firefighting debts, and since then it has muddled about, not knowing what to do. Obama’s new proposal puts the agency firmly back in the blank-check mode.
The president has underscored his support for excessive spending by allowing the Forest Service to buy four new air tankers, including a DC-10. The agency already had access to a DC-10, but rarely used it because it wasn’t cost-effective. Now it will have two white elephants on its hands.
Consult a physician to see this pharmacy store india generic viagra be sure about which oral steroids are suitable for you and also follow the dosage according to the suggested manner. To take proper care of the chemical pumps, one should have to be trained as http://davidfraymusic.com/events/chicago-symphony-center-3/ purchase generic viagra this machine is easy to utilize and treats a bundle of woes with an increased guilty feeling of not being a potent partner.Impotence in men, not only trigger physical nervousness, but for a man, it would be equal to losing the meaning of living. Meanwhile by relying on medications such as get viagra no prescription free sample. By using the GPS systems, these companies can easily locate their cars, thing that ensures the user is never made to go through any kind of work which comprises extreme mental awareness and physical power should be shunned strictly after Super P Force drug offered by us is a safe and modern cure of male disorder, also known as Erectile dysfunction treatment treatment cialis without prescription http://davidfraymusic.com/page/2/ to.
Contrary to popular belief, firefighting has not grown more expensive because of anthropogenic climate change. The nation actually suffered worse droughts in the 1930s than in the last decade, and there is no evidence, in the forests at least, that recent fires are due to anything but cyclical climate changes.
Nor are costs high because of new houses in the woods, or wildland-urban interface as fire people call it. Protecting these homes only requires treatment, either in advance of the fire through landscaping and home design or as fires approach through application of fire retardant, of the homes themselves and land within 150 feet of the homes. Anything the Forest Service does beyond that 150 feet is neither necessary nor sufficient to protect homes that are themselves untreated.
Instead, lots of acres burn because the Forest Service now places firefighters well behind the fire lines and has them back burn everything between them and the fire lines. In some fires, close to half the acres burned are back burns.
Meanwhile, costs are high because the Forest Service knows it has what amounts to a blank check, so it makes no effort to save money. As the Antiplanner explains in this paper, the only solution is to “divorce the agency from Congress’s blank check.” One way to do this might be to have national forests join state fire protection districts by paying an annual per-acre fee, and then letting the states worry about fire fighting. They would have much stronger incentives to control fire at the lowest, rather than the highest, possible cost.
The president’s concern that the Forest Service might hamper its fire prevention efforts by having to borrow from those funds to suppress fires is touching but needless. As shown by previous fires, Congress could fully fund fire prevention and fuel treatment programs for years without reducing the number of homes destroyed by fire each year. In fact, Congress is so willing to do anything to protect homes that the Forest Service practically depends on a few houses burning down each year to keep the money flowing.
The Forest Service should educate homeowners about what they need to do to defend their homes from fire. Beyond that, what people actually do is between them and their insurance companies, which for too long have indirectly relied on the blank check to keep their costs down. Getting firefighting decisions out of the hands of federal agencies may be the only way to let this happen.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, firefighting has not grown more expensive because of anthropogenic climate change. The nation actually suffered worse droughts in the 1930s than in the last decade, and there is no evidence, in the forests at least, that recent fires are due to anything but cyclical climate changes.
As I understand it, droughts have long been a “natural” part of the weather cycle in most places, definitely including the Western States of the U.S. But it is a convenient thing to blame on climate change.
Nor are costs high because of new houses in the woods, or wildland-urban interface as fire people call it. Protecting these homes only requires treatment, either in advance of the fire through landscaping and home design or as fires approach through application of fire retardant, of the homes themselves and land within 150 feet of the homes. Anything the Forest Service does beyond that 150 feet is neither necessary nor sufficient to protect homes that are themselves untreated.
I do think that a homeowner (or prospective homeowner) in a wildland area should be informed in advance of the risks of owning a home in such an area, and that they should be warned (but not compelled by government) that failure to landscape properly to protect against fire could result in loss of all improvements to their property (I suppose that a fire or homeowners insurance policy could be written subject to those sorts of conditions, and maybe they already are).
The warning document could presumably be presented and signed when the new owner settles on a real estate transaction. It should clearly state that the new owners are aware of the risks, and the document should be recorded in the county land records after settlement.
“As far as I know, no democracy has given any government agency a blank check to accomplish any goal–except the Forest Service for fighting fires. ”
Kind of surprised to read this. Obviously in the last 20 years a lot of blank checks have been written. It sometimes takes a different form that a blank check written directly to government offices, but there has been a lot of “free” money out there for agencies with the wherewithal to go and get it.
“Even the Pentagon was given budgets…”
Today’s military budgets are worse than a blank check. Congress is forcing the military to spend money they don’t want to spend. A blank check to the military would probably be more cost effective than the way the military budget is currently constructed.
This creates an incentive to spend as much as possible. One incentive is that the more you spend now, the more you get to spend in the future. If you don’t spend it now, you won’t have it in the future.
Averaging it over 10 years helps to mitigate that a bit. Taking the 10 year median would help even more. But it does nothing to reform the system, only further entrench the current paradigm.
This issue reminds me of the Reagan-era mantra to “get tough on crime.” Thus we have the prison-industrial complex, and the highest incarceration rate in the world. Typical U.S. approach, throw everything in except the kitchen sink and “hope it sticks.” Like medical care, prevention in wildfire-prone areas is far cheaper, but then such an approach requires an eye to detail and a great deal of finesse, something our bloated technocratic bureaucracies, and many “advocates”–governmental, corporate or otherwise–are seriously lacking.
Why are the feds in the fire-fighting business in the first place? Here in California CalFire does a very good job, and is very proactive, and effective, when it comes to prevention and homeowner education.
…firefighting has not grown more expensive because of anthropogenic climate change. The nation actually suffered worse droughts in the 1930s than in the last decade, and there is no evidence, in the forests at least, that recent fires are due to anything but cyclical climate changes.
Well, that is fascinating wording Randal.
The just-released National Climate Assessment actually found the opposite: anthropogenic climate change is affecting fire because
In addition, the report explains
So – the addition of first and second homes in the WUI demanding protection and the increase in forest stressors, THAT has increased the cost of firefighting – stressed forests and homes in WUI.
The situation is grim for firefighting right now. Maybe if we can let structures in fire-prone areas burn that would allow us to get a handle on the cost issue…
DS
Typical U.S. approach, throw everything in except the kitchen sink and “hope it sticks.”
Ah. Had I read that before I commented I would have worked that thought into my conclusion.
DS
This is another terrible discussion of fire fighting issues and funding. There is too much bad stuff to write a full critique about, so here are just some bullet point.
1. If the federal government is going to own millions of acres of land, it has the legal responsibility for the fires that start on its land.
2. Wildfire fighting is a difficult and expensive operation because there weeks and months of intense demand and weeks and months of low demand. Even worst if the feds only work on fed land and state and private only work on local lands. So the current system moves trained personnel all over the country to where most needed instead of relying upon just a local workforce.
3. The “blank check” funding kerfuffle is just a natural outcome of trying to force disaster relief funding into an annual federal budget system. FEMA, DoD, and other government agencies have the same issue. The Antiplanner’s proposal is philosophically pure but practically stupid.
4. Sure the federal firefighting budgets are bloated and inefficient. So is every local fire department and police office. How many hours per week does a local firefighter actually spend fighting fires?
I fully agree with Sandy Teal. Please, no umbrage thrown his way.
DS
Quoting from the National Climate Assessment? That’s embarrassing. The Obamas only expect their paid shills and low information voters to buy that one.
That is a purely political document. Even the IPCC disagrees with some of its conclusions. Read the report just issued by 14 of top scientists ripping this report apart. It concludes: “What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.”
Might as well trot out the line that 97% of scientists agree. Just don’t name the scientists or explain the “science”.