To prevent firefighting costs from at least doubling in the next decade or two, the report recommends some dramatic changes in incentives, pushing costs onto wildland interface property owners and the county commissioners who authorize residential development on fire-prone lands.
“The current policy of looking the other way while more and more homes are built on dangerous, fire-prone lands is not sustainable,” said Ray Rasker, the report’s author. “This report shows that we have the knowledge and solutions needed to address this problem. Now is the time to implement responsible, accountable steps that can help hold the line on future fire costs.”
Between fuel buildup from the Smokey Bear years, climate change, drought, vast tracts of insect-killed timber and an ongoing consumer interest in building homes in the woods, you’ve got what Rasker calls a “perfect storm” for ever-higher fire-fighting costs focused on protecting those homes.
Clearly, said Rasker, people who develop in forested areas, and local governments that allow such new subdivisions, do not pay their share of fire fighting costs. Instead, those costs have historically been pushed off onto all taxpayers, via the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).
The report, Solutions to the Rising Costs of Fighting Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface, enjoys the support of Dale Bosworth, former Chief of the Forest Service, and Roger Kennedy, former Director of the National Park Service and author of “Wildfire and Americans.”
“The current system of incentives is part of the problem,” wrote Rasker in the report. “By spending large sums every year to protect homes from wildfires, the federal government is subsidizing the true cost of development. Without financial disincentives to building homes on dangerous, fire-prone lands, the problem will get worse.”
Research focused on Montana wildfires showed that the closer a wildfire came to a structure, the firefighting costs rose exponentially. After accounting for differences in fire size, terrain, and road access, each additional home within one mile of a wildfire is associated with a $7,933 increase in suppression costs, while each additional home within six miles is associated with a $1,240 increase.
The dramatic increase in costs had to do with incident commanders tapping greater numbers of personnel, more extensive use of equipment and fire-suppression chemical drops, in order to protect structures. In the absence of these structures, wildfires are often allowed to burn themselves out.
“Today, few if any of the costs of protecting private property are borne by elected county officials, who make the land use decisions on private lands,” wrote Rasker. “The current system therefore lacks cost accountability. As long as someone else is paying the bill, those who permit the development of homes in dangerous, fire-prone landscapes have no incentive to change.”
“I don’t expect all our suggestions to be adopted,” said Rasker, but he does feel they contribute to getting a much-needed conversation started between federal officials, county commissioners, insurance companies and owners of private property.
Headwaters Economics does not advocate one solution over another. Rather, all are presented, with background, to explain how each idea could work along with its pros and cons.
Headwaters Economics suggestions
- 1. MAPPING: Publish maps identifying areas with high probability of wildland fires;
- 2. EDUCATION: Increase awareness of the financial consequences of home building in fire-prone areas;
- 3. LAND USE PLANNING: Provide technical assistance and financial incentives to help local governments direct future development away from the wildland-urban interface;
- 4. COST SHARE AGREEMENTS: Add incentives for counties to sign agreements that share the costs of wildland firefighting between local and federal entities;
- 5. LAND ACQUISITION: Purchase lands or easements on lands that are fire-prone and at risk of conversion to development;
- 6. A NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE AND MORTGAGE PROGRAM: Apply lessons from efforts to prevent development in floodplains;
- 7. INSURANCE: Allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums in fire-prone areas;
- 8. ZONING: Limit development in the wildland-urban Interface with local planning and zoning ordinances;
- 9. ELIMINATE MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIONS: Eliminate home interest mortgage deductions for new homes in the wildland-urban interface;
- 10. REDUCE FEDERAL FIREFIGHTING BUDGETS: Induce federal land managers to shift more of the cost of wildland firefighting to local governments.
Two retired leaders of federal land agencies have given their support to the new Headwaters Economics paper.
Roger Kennedy, the former National Park Service Director, states the situation succinctly: “We must cease making the problem worse by encouraging more people to settle where they cannot be protected and where nature cannot be protected from them. We should stop subsidizing and encouraging people to join the land rush into fire danger, a danger increasing with global warming.”
Dale Bosworth, the former chief of the U.S. Forest Service, said politicians and the public don’t think about wildfires the same way they do about avalanche runs in the mountains, or flood plains along rivers or coastal areas. “They don’t expect the government to stop floods or hurricanes or avalanches, but they do expect the government to stop wildfires, usually by throwing more resources at the problem,” said Bosworth.
Throwing more money, personnel and equipment at mega-wildfires doesn’t work, warned Bosworth.
Both Kennedy and Bosworth agreed that the current situation can only get worse and more expensive.
Joe Evans, director of the Wyoming County Commissioners' Association, said changing who pays for wildfire fighting sounds extreme and noted there are property right issues to be considered.
Steven Beazley, president of the Wyoming Association of Realtors, said his policy committee is studying the Headwaters paper, but he too has concerns about private property issues.
