With drought plaguing Western states and fire risk higher than normal, it has never been more apparent that our wildfire-fighting agencies need every possible resource at their disposal. Unfortunately, Congress doesn’t seem to share this urgency: last week a subcommittee of House Appropriations rejected a critical proposal to increase wildfire-fighting funding and flexibility—a move that ignores long-term forest health and puts vulnerable communities further at risk.
Since wildfire suppression costs have skyrocketed in the last twenty years (from 16 percent of the Forest Service’s budget to a whopping 42 percent last year), money is often borrowed from crucial fire prevention programs to pay for emergency suppression. The practice is, regrettably, common enough to have its own name: “fire borrowing.” But fire borrowing undercuts the Forest Service’s ability to employ preventative measures, leading to a greater possibility of future fires.
The Obama administration proposed to address this funding gap by adding more than $1 billion to the fiscal year 2016 budget as a fire reserve. By rejecting this proposal, Congress is gambling with not only the funding of a government agency, but with Americans’ homes and lives, too.
From the safety of the Capitol building, it might be easy to ignore the vital prevention and restoration measures that are delayed or cancelled when fire borrowing pulls the rug from underneath wildfire prevention programs. But here are just a couple of examples, from 2012 and 2013, of what is sidelined when the Forest Service has to raid its own coffers
- In California, hazardous fuel reductions in Tahoe National Forest were deferred; restoration of landscapes scarred by fire were either cancelled or delayed—including critical watersheds and recreational areas.
- In Colorado, emergency repairs in several national forests and grasslands were passed by, as managers had to pick and choose only the most critical sites to address; the removal of “hazard trees” posing a threat in recreational areas was cut back.
- In Idaho, repairing roads and bridges in several national forests was sidelined; trail maintenance and visitor signage was postponed; and removal of hazardous fuels in Sawtooth National Forest was reduced.
These are far from isolated examples—every year that fire borrowing continues will delay or cancel scores of preventative wildfire measures that are vital to long-term forest health and community safety.
The refusal to adequately fund forest programs is also surprising, considering the fact that prominent lawmakers have been vocal about a need for better forest management. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) in particular has been an outspoken critic of the federal approach to forests—and, as chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, he is in a perfect position to advocate for greater funding.
Instead, Bishop staunchly opposed the administration’s request for a fire reserve, stating that “the Forest Service must start thinking creatively.” Such comments are the definition of hypocrisy: if lawmakers have genuine concerns about the effectiveness of federal land management, then they must provide agencies like the Forest Service with the resources necessary to properly address management concerns.
This week, the full House Appropriations Committee will consider the spending bill, and amendments could still be made to rectify the problem of fire borrowing. But so far, Congress has refused to recognize the long-term impacts of poaching funds from vital preventative services to pay for emergency suppression. As they take up the bill, House members would do well to remember that wildfires are natural disasters, too—and by shortchanging the agencies tasked with preventing them, they are, quite literally, playing with fire.