So Who's Responsible?
Wildland fire suppression costs in the United States have been on the rise, and while cost has been a topic of discussion throughout my career, the last few years seem to be attracting more concern and heated comment. The discussion usually takes two basic tracks:
How these increasing costs will be shared, usually in light of reduced federal dollars; and
How the actual costs can be contained, if not reduced, on individual fire incidents.
Everyone seems to agree that all state, local, tribal and federal wildland fire suppression partners need to take a very close look at related costs and make efforts to reduce those expenses whenever safely possible; however, there is another cost containment track needs to be brought into the discussion.
Firefighting in the wildland-urban interface is contributing significantly to increased suppression costs. During fiscal years 2003 and 2004, about 87% of the Forest Service's firefighting expenditures on 37 large fires (with suppression costs exceeding $5 million per fire) were spent protecting private property — and some within the Forest Service have reportedly estimated that up to 97% of large wildfire costs are directly related to protecting private property and homes in the interface. This is big money in a time of generally tight, if not actually decreasing, federal budgets.
There are no simple solutions to contain costs when structures enter the wildland fire picture; however, responsibility needs to start a long time before ignition to actually control suppression costs. This responsibility belongs to the property owners, businesses, local government and up through Congress, but let me emphasize that responsibility begins with the home owner. I am a firm believer in individuals taking responsibility for their own actions. If someone makes the decision to place a home or business in a hazardous environment, he or she needs to understand the risk and be willing to accept that the worst may happen someday. He or she also must help mitigate those impacts, if possible. To some, mitigation may simply mean having adequate insurance for replacement, but for the properly educated it may mean being proactive to reduce potential fire behavior.
The insurance and mortgage industries need to take a serious look at their policies for interface properties. Local government agencies need to regulate interface development, including implementing and enforcing zoning and building codes and standards designed to reduce wildland fire impacts. These agencies, along with all fire suppression entities, need to establish or continue to implement prevention and public-education programs, encouraging programs such as Firewise and Firesmart. These same groups need to access the “homeowner carrot” provided by cost-share grant funding for fuel mitigation made available by the National Fire Plan, and make sure the money gets used as much as possible on the ground to achieve results in high-priority areas. Federal land management agencies need to be aggressive in their fuels-reduction programs protecting their infrastructure as well as adjacent interface areas. Finally, Congress needs to make sure the federal agencies have adequately funded fire suppression budgets, and it must continue to support fuel-mitigation programs funded through the National Fire Plan.
Let's face it, for most of Congress and for most of the public, suppression is not their area of expertise. Educating the public and lawmakers is our responsibility. It's not a flashy job, but over time it will help to produce results in cost containment.
International Assn. of Wildland Fire
P.O. Box 261
Hot Springs, S.D. 57747-0261
ph: 605-890-2348
fax: 206-600-5113 iawf@iawfonline.org
To join the IAWF, visit www.iawfonline.org
Send them to:
Wildfire Magazine
330 N. Wabash Ave.
Suite 2300
Chicago, Ill. 60611
Attn: Lisa Allegretti
lisa.allegretti@penton.com
