With the peak of summer wildfire season still months away, Congress and the Forest Service are wringing their hands over how to pay the increased costs of fighting wildfires without cannibalizing the agency's limited budget.
The Bush administration is requesting a 23 percent increase in the Forest Service's fire-suppression budget in fiscal 2008 -- raising it $170 million to $911 million. The proposal devotes 45 percent of the service's budget to fire suppression and preparedness, compared to 13 percent in 1991 and 25 percent in 2000.
Last year, the Forest Service and Interior Department spent nearly $2 billion fighting fires on about 10 million acres. The budget request is based on the 10-year average of fire suppression costs, and there is a growing movement to change the way the federal government pays the bill.
Until the mid-1990s, the Forest Service was able to borrow money in trust funds deposited by timber sale buyers, and Congress reimbursed the agency. That worked well enough until the number of wildfires skyrocketed and timber sales declined, forcing the agency to divert funds from research, land acquisition, even hazardous fuels reduction projects meant to limit fire danger.
"It's kind of a double whammy," said Doug Crandall of the Society of American Foresters. "You use the 10-year average to budget at the beginning of the year, so all your non-fire programs get whacked. Then if you spend more than the 10-year average you have to borrow from those programs. It's pretty devastating to those other programs, and it's a lousy way to run an agency."
By the end of last week, wildfires had burned 895,043 acres of U. S. land this year, well above the eight-year average of 763,616 acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. "This fire season has started early, and it's big," Crandall said. "If they didn't supplement fire funds, they would have to even borrow more."
The wildfire season will not reach its height until late summer in the West, and the Forest Service is in a precarious position. Its managers don't know how much money to hold in reserve.
"The requirement that the [Forest Service] must ask for the 10-year average fire suppression cost in its budget requests leads to sudden and unpredictable reductions in funds for non-fire related programs, usually in the middle of the summer when all Forest Service programs need funding," five former Forest Service chiefs stated in an open letter earlier this month.
'Above and beyond'
The government doesn't pay for emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina out of agency budgets, so many are asking why wildfires are treated differently. "The recognition we're trying to find here is these costs are above and beyond what should be expected in the regular budgeting process," said Jay Jensen, executive director of the Council of Western State Foresters.
Members of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee have repeatedly referred to the agency as the "Fire Service" at hearings this year and are tentatively scheduled to mark up the fiscal 2008 spending bill Wednesday. The Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee is holding a hearing on the Forest Service budget tomorrow.
Three years ago, Congress established a $1 billion reserve fund -- $800 million for USFS and $200 million for Interior -- to be used only after the regular appropriated money was spent. Last year's fire season evaporated what was left of the fund.
"The reserve fund has been demonstrated to be very helpful in the past to avoid those types of transfers," said Jaelith Hall-Rivera, wildfire policy analyst with the Wilderness Society.
Appropriators are attempting to replenish the fund with $500 million via the Iraq supplemental, but the White House opposes the extra money.
"In the event of extreme fire conditions, the administration can use existing transfer authority to meet immediate requirements and work with Congress on finding additional resources for fire suppression should the need arise," a May 10 Statement of Administration Policy stated.
In the long run, partitioning fire suppression money from the regular appropriations process is the only way, according to the National Association of State Foresters, retired Forest Service chiefs Max Peterson, Dale Robertson, Jack Ward Thomas, Mike Dombeck and Dale Bosworth, and other interested parties.
A NASF white paper suggests partitioning the suppression budget and implementing cost-containment management controls and agency line officer incentives and spending more money on proactive programs, such as Firewise. Incentives could work by allowing regional offices to keep money they save in their regions, for use on other programs.
Incentives to cut costs
Emergency funding isn't a sure thing, however. There are concerns that forest managers won't have any incentive to cut costs if the spending is approved on an emergency basis and doesn't affect the underlying budget. And since the government would still be paying the high costs of firefighting, it would still count against the deficit.
At hearings this year, federal land managers have pegged part of the increased costs of fire suppression to growth in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), where 8.4 million homes have been built since 1990. Forced to defend private property and buildings that were not there before, firefighting is now more difficult and expensive.
The Forest Service hopes to reduce costs by fighting fires on a priority basis, taking into account private property, infrastructure and human lives, but there is a limit to what it can accomplish if a fire escapes initial attack, according to a draft Brookings Institution panel report chartered by USDA.
"The panel acknowledged that current efforts by forests and their incident business advisers to ensure compliance with contracting and resource allocation procedures and to maintain a high level of fiscal vigilance for potential waste and abuse were important, but unlikely to affect spending levels by more than 10 percent," the report states.
A panel studied 20 fires that cost near or above $500 million to extinguish. "For all practical purposes, once a Type I team is assigned with adequate aviation and engine support, a large wildfire situation is going to cost a certain amount regardless."
Even hazardous fuels reduction projects in the WUI have limited reach, the draft report states. "Fuels treatments in WUI areas are recognized as effective helping to protect structures and communities, but have marginal impact on the forest as a whole and the effectiveness of small parcel treatments throughout the forest is of unproven effectiveness."
Last November, the Agriculture Department's inspector general said states and local governments should pay more of the firefighing costs in order to convince those entities to limit development in the WUI and therefore reduce costs and risks to the federal government.
Given the increase in rural development, environmentalists and state groups believe the feds should be helping local governments more, not attempting to shift the budgetary burden. For instance, the Bush administration proposes a 14 percent cut in fiscal 2008 for state fire assistance programs, which helps states develop preparedness and response capabilities for wildfires. About 165,000 firefighters have been trained through the program since 2002.
NASF says it needs $145 million to assist current and emerging community wildfire preparedness and protection needs.American Lands Alliance
