The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

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 activities 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 built in fire-prone rural areas over the 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 eucalyptus 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.

Photo: Firefighters work to dig a fire line on the Rocky Fire in Lake County, California July 30, 2015. REUTERS/Max Whittaker

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Former President Bill Clinton leaves UCI Medical Center with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

CNBC screen shot

(Reuters) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton walked out of a Southern California hospital early Sunday morning accompanied by his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after being admitted last week for a urological infection, live video showed.

Clinton, 75, had been in California for an event for the Clinton Foundation and was treated at the University of California Irvine Medical Center's intensive care unit after suffering from fatigue and being admitted on Tuesday.

Keep reading... Show less

Trumpist rioters rampaging in the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

Reprinted with permission from DailyKos

The federal judge overseeing the Oath Keepers conspiracy case in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection ordered their trial delayed this week, primarily because of the overwhelming amount of evidence still being produced in their cases. Though the delay was expected, its reasons are stark reminders that January 6 will be one of the most complex prosecutions in history and that the investigation remains very active as more evidence piles up. There are likely some very big shoes still to drop.

Keep reading... Show less
x
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}