Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Wildfire costs could double as housing grows, report says

If Montana’s forest fringes continue filling with houses, wildland firefighting costs could double, according to a report by the Bozeman-based Headwaters Economics. “Protecting homes is a major cost and safety issue in fighting fire,” said Headwaters author Chris Mehl. “The challenge is, if we keep building these homes in the wildland-urban interface, who should bear the cost? Will localities say we’re not willing to bear the cost and you landowners must bear more? We need to look at land-use planning." Wildland firefighting strategy prioritizes human safety and structure protection above all other goals. That often means fire crews will deploy equipment and personnel to guard backcountry homes, even though the flame front may be far away. Restricting house construction in the wildland-urban interface might be a good idea, report critic Andy Stahl said, but Headwaters is using the wrong measuring stick to make its point. “It looks like Headwaters is trying to wag the dog with the tail,” said Stahl, who leads Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Eugene, Ore. “It’s trying to get Montana and other land-use jurisdictions to make housing permitting decisions on the basis of Forest Service firefighting costs, with the thought that somehow, if only Montana could control suburban sprawl, the Forest Service would spend less money on firefighting. There’s no reason to think so.” Forest Service firefighting costs have little to do with home protection, Stahl said. He pointed to the difference in firefighting expenses for Texas and California, which have comparable numbers of homes in the wildland-urban interface. Texas pays considerably less, he said. “And that’s because Texas has almost no federal or public land,” Stahl said. “So who pays for firefighting in Texas? State and local jurisdictions. Costs are not exploding in Texas, and the reason is Texas can’t print money.” Places like California and Montana that have lots of federal land administered by the Forest Service have much higher wildland firefighting bills, he said. That’s also true compared with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. In the past decade, Forest Service fire costs have gone from twice as expensive as Interior Department costs, to 3.5 times higher, Stahl said. “Not even the insurance industry thinks the threat of wildfire is worth placing additional premium on the wildland-urban interface,” Stahl said. “We don’t lose very many homes on the WUI from wildfire. The home loss from careless smoking dwarfs by 10 times the loss from wildland fire.”...more

Pay attention lawmakers:

He pointed to the difference in firefighting expenses for Texas and California, which have comparable numbers of homes in the wildland-urban interface. Texas pays considerably less, he said. “And that’s because Texas has almost no federal or public land,” Stahl said.

Pay attention appropriators:

In the past decade, Forest Service fire costs have gone from twice as expensive as Interior Department costs, to 3.5 times higher, Stahl said.

No comments: