Fighting wildfires costs U.S. taxpayers $3 billion annually, more than twice what it cost a decade ago. Unfortunately, this expense is almost certain to continue to grow, and—unless action is taken—firefighting costs could at least double again in the next 15 years because of expanding residential development on fire-prone lands and increased temperatures associated with climate change.
The current trend of building more and more homes on dangerous, fire-prone lands is not sustainable. Roger Kennedy, former Director of the National Park Service, states the situation succinctly in his book, Wildfire and Americans:
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.
In an effort to curb the rising expense of fighting forest fires, Headwaters Economics has developed a report that outlines ten possible solutions, ranging from increased education to changes in insurance or mortgage laws.
The research white paper shows that we have the knowledge and solutions needed to address this problem, and the report, Solutions to the Rising Costs of Fighting Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface, enjoys the support of former Director Kennedy and Dale Bosworth, former Chief of the Forest Service.
The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) in Perspective
A few numbers help put the urgency of the situation into context.
Currently only 14 percent of the wildland-urban interface (private land near fire-prone public land) in the West has homes on it, leaving the other 86 percent—more than 20,000 square miles—open to residential development.
Already, firefighting makes up roughly half the Forest Service’s annually budget. And while the current $3 billion per year price tag may seem high, if 50 percent of the wildland-urban interface were to be developed, the cost of fighting wildfire could reach $4.5 billion, or more than the entire budget of the Forest Service. Say goodbye to campgrounds, fish and game management, and all the other reasons we enjoy public lands. Clearly, the path we are on is unsustainable.
The current public lands firefighting situation also is not fair. Only four percent of the homes in the West are in the wildland-urban interface, which means the great majority of American taxpayers are carrying the burden for a select few.
Furthermore, one in five homes in the WUI is a second home, and the per-person consumption of land is six times larger than outside the WUI.
Montana Cost Case Study:
Montana may be a good indication of where we are headed. Research recently conducted by Headwaters Economics on behalf of the Montana Legislature found that protecting the average home from a wildfire event costs roughly $8,000.
Statewide, the cost of protecting homes from forest fires averages $28 million annually, representing one-third of the total cost of fighting fires each year.
We estimated that with no controls over future home building, the cost to protect homes from wildfires in Montana would exceed $40 million. In addition, based on historical records, we know that a one degree Fahrenheit increase in average summertime temperature (a conservative estimate of future changes, according to climate scientists) will double the cost of protecting Montana homes from forest fires, to more than $84 million per year.
Yearly Cost of Protecting Homes from Wildfires in Montana
That is a very large bill for a state with less than a million people. Next year, we will be making similar estimates for the Sierra Nevada of California and the state of New Mexico. Our predictions are that in more urbanized states the costs will be even higher.
While the defense of homes is not the only reason firefighting costs have increased—a warmer climate and fuel buildup from past practices also play a role—building future homes in the WUI is an area where we can make progress. And, in doing so, we protect wildlife habitat, open spaces, save the taxpayer money, and free the agencies to do those other things we want from them, like maintaining hiking trails and protecting our scenic treasures.
Listed below are 10 ideas for controlling the rise of firefighting costs. There is a common thread that ties them all together, and that is an understanding that the current system lacks cost accountability. As long as someone else is paying the bill, those who build or permit the development of homes in dangerous, fire-prone landscapes have no incentive to change.
Ten Possible Solutions:
In short, the ideas are:
- Mapping – require the federal land management agencies to coordinate and produce a comprehensive, county-level on-line mapping resource so to that county elected officials, and perspective home builders, can assess the fire risk before they permit and build homes.
- Education – conduct and publish research on what it costs to protect homes from wildfires. As noted earlier, in Montana each home costs the agencies $8,000 to protect, per fire.
- Federal aid for land use planning – use a portion of the more than $300 million of federal dollars that goes annually to non-federal entities to help counties find ways to prevent further development on the most dangerous fire-prone lands.
- Sign cost-share agreements – get county governments to sign the existing system of fire-fighting cost-share agreements through a combination of incentives (large land use planning rants, for example) and disincentives (withhold reimbursement of firefighting costs if not agreement has been signed).
- Buy fire-prone lands by expanding the criteria for use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and similar federal pots of money to include the most dangerous fire-prone lands.
- Develop a Federal Wildland-Urban Interface Insurance Program – based on the National Flood Insurance Program, develop a program that requires homeowners to purchase firefighting insurance and prohibits mortgages for homes on fire-prone lands.
- Allow insurance rates to reflect the true risk of building in the WUI by eliminating federal subsidies for firefighting.
- Use zoning, at the local level, to direct the pace, scale and pattern of homes building away from the most dangerous places.
- Eliminate mortgage interest tax deductions for homes built in the WUI.
- Reduce the federal firefighting budget, forcing agencies to transfer the costs to the local level, where land development decisions are being made.
There is a growing sentiment that individuals and local governments should and must take a higher level of responsibility of their land use decisions. The ideas presented offer a way to start the conversation on how to do that.
In our report, we carefully explore the pros and cons of each and ask whether the idea is politically feasible, and whether it will truly result in lower firefighting costs. Admittedly, not all have promise, and some may be politically impossible. However, if we do not address the pace, scale and pattern of development in the wildland urban interface, the already significant firefighting costs, and the substantial risk to people and property, will continue to escalate.
Ray Rasker Ph.D. is the Executive Director of Headwaters Economics, an independent nonprofit research group that provides resources for improving community development and land management decisions in the West. |
