States, Feds, Community, Homeowner Responsibilities and Funding: Comparing Some Colorado and California Approaches

 

A few things came to mind when I saw this Colorado Public Radio story..

1. What originally struck me was this statement :

Like many people working the issue in Colorado, McCombs and others praise their local federal partners. But if there’s another ask right now of Congress, it would be to ensure there is  adequate and qualified federal staff to help get their mitigation projects off the ground.

Pinnow, of the West Region Wildfire Council, said one project they’re working on that’s funded by the federal government requires an archaeological survey.

“Right now, the U.S. Forest Service in this area has no archeologist. And so those projects have been on the shelf and just waiting for more than nine months,” he said. “We borrowed a BLM archeologist to actually approve it on the federal level, but the U.S. Forest Service still has to sign off because that’s where the money came from. They don’t have anyone to even sign off.”

I understand the archeologist issue (if you listen to Chris French,  the point is to redirect positions to the field), but no one to sign off?  That sounds a little odd to me.  Seems like authorities could be delegated. even if there are some people missing. How long does it take to write a delegation of authority? There must be more to the story, so I have a call in to the RO.  I wonder why the reporter didn’t follow up on this.

*********************************

In addition, I found this interesting…

2. Given the return on investment, Tim Pinnow, CEO of the West Region Wildfire Council, whose mission is to build wildfire resilient communities in six Western Slope counties, would like to see more funding and focus on hardening homes.

“There’s almost no money anywhere for the home hardening piece, which is actually in terms of saving homes, the most important.”

Grant funding could be used for home hardening, fuel reduction programs — like removing beetle kill — and prescribed burns. Many groups and local governments have shovel-ready projects ready to go if and when funding comes through.

I always like to compare California and Colorado, as they are both D led states and so we can see the issues more clearly without the partisan blinkers.

In California, as I have pointed out, they have a loan program for home hardening and helping people find contractors.  They seem to see it as a state issue.  There are also some that resent their electric and insurance bills going up because “people choose to live in dangerous places.”

In July you might have seen this piece on insurance..

That’s still too much, according to Michael Wara, director of the climate and energy policy program at Stanford University, noting the cap is four times the median California home value.

Wara said one way to limit FAIR’s exposure risk is to exclude second homes from the plan and force those homeowners to seek coverage from lightly-regulated insurers in what is known as the “non-admitted” market, which has been expanding as climate change makes properties increasingly uninsurable.

“If you can afford to have a house in Tahoe, then you should not be reliant on what is essentially a subsidy from the rest of the state for your homeowner’s insurance,” he said.

I like the California home hardening and leveraged loan programs, imagined and supported by our friends at Megafire Action.

And if we follow Wara’s logic,  why should taxpayers pay for home hardening or local prescribed burning projects? Yes, the feds own land and have to pay for work on their land.   I just think it’s a broader question.. who pays for hurricane and earthquake improvements in homes?  Should the owner/insurance/county/state/fed split be the same for every kind of protection?

**********
The article indeed cites a report by Megafire Action but quotes folks that go directly to .. the feds.

A recent study found that for every dollar spent on removing fuels can save up to $7 on the suppression and recovery end. And every $1 invested by the government to harden homes can save $3 in recovery efforts.

Given the return on investment, Tim Pinnow, CEO of the West Region Wildfire Council, whose mission is to build wildfire resilient communities in six Western Slope counties, would like to see more funding and focus on hardening homes.

“There’s almost no money anywhere for the home hardening piece, which is actually in terms of saving homes, the most important.”

Grant funding could be used for home hardening, fuel reduction programs — like removing beetle kill — and prescribed burns. Many groups and local governments have shovel-ready projects ready to go if and when funding comes through.

**********

Two Rivers Executive Director Rizza agreed funding is key, but so is streamlining the process and providing consistency when it comes to grants and laws. “How the stuff is written, how it’s delivered, how it comes out of these programs. One year it says this, the next year it’s the complete opposite.”

Matt McCombs, Colorado’s state forester, pointed out there’s one funding program in particular he’d like to see renewed.

“Community Wildfire Defense Grant was a program that came out of the bipartisan infrastructure law,” he explained. “That has pumped $50 million into wildfire risk reduction and community resilience in the state of Colorado since its inception.”

He said that funding often goes to places that might not be able to afford to undertake mitigation work on their own. “That’s another great example of where those big federal investments, in leverage with state investments and community-based investments, start to get to the type and the quality and the intensity of the work that we know is necessary to try to respond to not what’s coming, but what’s here.”

He’d also like to see a program renewed and strengthened that allows state and local governments to continue to working with federal partners. It’s called the Good Neighbor Authority, and a number of lawmakers have agreed to introduce bills that do just that.

“The Good Neighbor Authority was invented in Colorado. We are hardwired for collaboration in a state. So let’s keep leaning into doing the most work in the highest risk places as fast as we can because of the speed and intensity of the problem that we’re facing,” he said.

I’ll also contact McCombs and find out his ideas for improving GNA.

**************

Finally, a few people have sent me this piece. I am a big fan of the folks at CFRI, but I don’t see the three distinct camps they see.. 1. Put ignitions out quickly, 2. manage vegetation through fuel reduction and prescribed fire, and 3.

A third camp says fire is coming regardless, and people have to live with it by accepting and promoting more fire, but allowing it to burn on our terms, when and where it’s safe. This is often called managed wildfire. It sometimes includes creating landscapes and communities that can survive and recover from fire.

I see “prefer prescribed to so-called managed wildfire to reduce fuels” “treat fuels using mechanical treatments” and “home and community hardening.”  I see the home hardening business as that of communities and homeowners, and fuel treatments and PF as a shared responsibility between communities and federal land neighbors, and the role of MF itself as the only issue that remains.   There are at least three camps in the MF world, 1. No never, 2. Build trust via pre decisional NEPA and public involvement as sidebars, then yes. 3. There’s no problem. Anyway, that’s the way I see it, and I think you can also see that from the CPR article, how communities and federal and state partners are working together on community protection, mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire.