Fighting Forest Fires with Bipartisan Solution
By Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
March 27, 2009

As you may know, the cost of fighting fires has skyrocketed over the past decade. In fact, forest fire activities now account for approximately 48 percent of the Forest Service budget, and more than ten percent of the Interior Department budget. As a result of this lopsided use of resources, federal agencies tasked with fighting fires have been forced to raid funds from non-fire programs. Consequently, areas like campgrounds, visitor centers and critical forest management practices that rely on this funding for normal operation are shortchanged. Not only does this loss of funding lead to early closures of recreation areas and inadequate maintenance of roads and other infrastructure critical to preserving our country’s natural treasures, it also undermines crucial preventative measures like hazardous fuel reduction that forestry officials use to prevent future catastrophic fires on wild lands in the first place. It’s an unfortunate cycle.

In order to correct this flaw in budgeting to ensure that appropriated funds accurately reflect the cost of fighting fires in a given year and avoid future raids of unrelated accounts, I helped pass the Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement or FLAME Act. As we all know, these forestry and land use issues can often be extremely controversial and difficult to find consensus, so it’s vitally important to note that this is bipartisan legislation, which creates a federal FLAME fund for catastrophic, emergency wildland fire suppression activities to be used when annually appropriated funds run out.

Under the bill, the FLAME Fund is to be used only for suppression of catastrophic, emergency wildland fires and only after the Secretary of Agriculture or Interior issues a specific declaration that the fire is large enough and dangerous enough to warrant tapping the fund. Such declarations could be made if a wildfire covers at least 300 acres, the department determines that the threat posed by the fire warrants an emergency declaration, and wildfire suppression costs are expected to exceed the annually appropriated funds for predicted wildfire suppression.

The bill also requires the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to submit a report to Congress one year after the bill’s enactment containing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy. The bill requires the report to include a system identifying the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management resources, a system for assessing the level of risk to communities from wildfires, an illustration of plans by the departments to re-invest in non-fire programs, and a system ensuring that the highest priority fuels reduction projects - those that can prevent catastrophic wildfires - are being funded first.

Finally, the bill establishes a grant program within each department designed to assist communities in preparing for wildfires. Grants could be used for purchasing firefighting equipment, and training programs for local firefighters. Grants could also be used for education and public awareness regarding wildfires, and development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans.

Importantly, the bill does not create any new spending or add to the deficit. In fact, CBO expects that creating the FLAME Fund and authorizing appropriations to that fund for fire suppression would have no effect on the federal budget because agencies already receive appropriations under existing authorities and have permanent authority to transfer funds from other accounts to cover fire suppression costs. Implementing this legislation might change the timing of appropriations for fire suppression but not the total cost of that activity.

Further, this legislation is supported by the Western Governors Association, a bipartisan group of governors from 22 western states and territories including Governor Rounds, as wildfires have devastated many forested areas in their states. Additionally, the bill has the support of a broad coalition interested in the health of our forests groups like the Black Hills Forest Resource Association, the Black Hills Multiple Use Coalition and the South Dakota chapter of the Sierra Club.

In the 110th Congress, the House passed a similar version of the FLAME Act, but the Senate did not act on the measure. This year, I’m hopeful that this bill will pass both houses of Congress and reach the President for his signature. The Obama Administration has indicated their support for working with the Congress on this issue, and the President included funding that complements the FLAME Act in his Fiscal Year 2010 budget request. Given the damage wildfires have caused in South Dakota and other western states, passing this legislation before another fire season passes us by is a critical, common sense move to retain the health of our forests that provide endless recreational activities as well as environmental and economic development opportunities.