|
|
|
|
by Dan Minkoff
| Tue, 30 Oct 2007 |
Tax Dollars Burn During California's Wildfires
Most everything that fire destroys can be replaced, with the tragic exception of lost lives. Unfortunately, government policies are seemingly as permanent as death, and those policies had catastrophic consequences during the wildfires that erupted last week in Southern California.
Government's land management policies have created a more dangerous situation for the growing number of residents who live in fire-prone areas. In addition, the further away tax dollars go from our local communities, the less good it does for everyone.
Orange County Fire Authority Chief Chip Prather held a press conference last week to complain that "there weren't enough resources to go around, and that the state failed to provide flying tankers and other air support, along with the equipment necessary to battle the blazes in his area," according to news reports.
California annually sends $50 billion more to Washington, D.C. than it gets back in payments and services. Imagine if we just kept that money in the state how many more water-dropping helicopters, fire-retardant-dispensing airplanes, and other firefighting equipment we could buy.
Moreover, the Associated Press reported that government rules requiring "fire spotters" prevented significant air support from assisting the firefighting efforts for at least a day, and by the time the spotters arrived, high winds had grounded the planes.
Since 1980, the amount of government-owned property burned by wildland fires has grown every decade. National Interagency Fire Center statistics show an increase from an annual average of just under 3 million acres during the 1980s to 3.4 million acres in the 90s to about 7 million acres this decade. In fact, before 2000, only one year since recordkeeping began in 1960 saw more than 7 million acres burned by wildfires, and that was way back in 1963.
However, more than 7 million acres have burned in one year six times since 2000. The past three years have all experienced fires that burned more than 8 million acres, and last year set a new record with 9.9 million acres destroyed. So far this year, we're slightly behind last year's pace, but this is already only the second year ever to top 9 million acres burned.
Even allowing for the fact that looking at acreage alone gives, at best, an incomplete picture (because grassland fires are managed differently than those in forests), the data still are headed in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, the Idaho Statesman reported on August 19 that "at the peak of one of the worst fire seasons in history, the number of fires burning on private forests in Idaho is effectively zero." Compare that to the 708,000 acres that were burning on national forest lands in Idaho on that date.
Private forests are managed in a more libertarian manner, freed from many of the policies favored by government. Private forests are often owned by companies such as International Paper, Boise Cascade, or Western Pacific Timber, which have an economic incentive to make sure their forests are thinned, that flammable brush is cleared, that firebreaks are built, and that road access is good.
The government, though, often bows to environmentalists' calls to leave forests in their "natural state." What incentive do politicians have to offend environmentalists, who are big campaign contributors? Unlike Boise Cascade's CEO, the interior secretary doesn't have to answer to shareholders demanding ways to prevent such a catastrophe. The secretary can just sound the familiar refrain, "We need more resources," which is not-so-secret code for "make the taxpayers pay for it."
And are we ever.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides a form of welfare for people who live in areas subject to fires, floods, and other disasters. If private insurers won't insure a home built next to a tinderbox, why should the government? Yet FEMA provides a multi-billion-dollar safety net that encourages development in areas where people wouldn't otherwise build because they know a taxpayer-funded bailout is only a presidential disaster declaration away. Not surprisingly, federal disaster declarations have gone from an average of 13 per year in the 1950s to an average of 53 per year this decade.
This must stop.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., recently said development in some fire-prone areas should be restricted. That's a typical government response. What should be restricted is government's involvement so that private citizens, nonprofit groups, or businesses and private insurers can manage risk in a mutually beneficial way.
Government bureaucracy and regulations are spreading at least as fast as the Southern California wildfires did. While we know that the fires eventually will be put out, unfortunately, we also know that politicians will continue to support policies that burn through our tax dollars.
|
|
|
