New York Times today: In California, Controlled Fires Can Save Homes. Why Aren’t More Happening?
Excerpt:
The state’s budget maintains $2.6 billion in funding for tackling wildfires and improving forest health. An additional $200 million per year is designated for healthy forest and fire prevention programs, which include prescribed fire projects.
The money is most likely not enough, especially because it is spread across a number of initiatives, said Mark Schwartz, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis, who has studied controlled burns and other wildfire management methods.
In addition to the need for more funds, Mr. Schwartz said, controlled burn programs face a number of other hurdles. Already limited in number, firefighters who would staff a prescribed fire are often called away to battle an active blaze. There are also only so many days in a year that conditions are right for a fire, and access is a challenge in some locations. And local communities may oppose a controlled burn, he said.
“It’s hard to wag a finger too much at agencies,” he said. “Getting prescribed fire on the landscape at the scale we’d like is very difficult.”
There is quite a ‘spectrum of beliefs’ about this, across America. There are some people who don’t want logging or prescribed fire. Many of us want BOTH logging and prescribed fire. Some want logging, with no fires at all, and some think that prescribed fires, alone, can do the job.
Of course, all of it should be based on actual site-specific conditions and scientific facts. Sadly, some want to include partisan political rhetoric and personal preferences.
We submitted an LTE to the NYTimes on this, given that they missed a lot of the facts on the ground in CA. Who knows if they’ll published, but I’ve included it here:
To the Editor:
In “In California, Controlled Fires Can Save Homes. Why Aren’t More Happening?” Kate Selig highlighted the promise and need for more beneficial fire.
But she missed the exciting work underway to address barriers in California. In four short years, the state has partnered with the beneficial fire community to stand up a “burn boss” certification program to increase and diversify the workforce. They have modified liability standards and established a $20,000,000 claims fund to encourage landowners and community members to join the work, without fear of financial ruin. And in deference to Tribal sovereignty and to address historic injustices, the state has worked to recognize the expertise of cultural fire practitioners in leading the way to greater wildfire resilience.
These policy changes are a remarkable accomplishment, but Ms. Selig is right: there is more left to do. What’s needed now are stable investments in training and capacity, efficient planning and permitting, and state and federal accommodation of Tribal rights to steward.
Sara A. Clark, San Francisco
The author is a partner at Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, author of Good Fire II, and co-lead of The Stewardship Project.
Lenya Quinn-Davidson
The author is Director of the UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.