Wildfire Suppression Costs

Wildfire spending has been a source of much debate, many reports, and a variety of federal policy initiatives.  In “Getting Burned: A Taxpayer’s Guide to Wildfire Suppression Costs”, Dr. Timothy Ingalsbee explores sources of elevated fire spending and the conditions that prompt costly actions through a breakdown of socioeconomic, institutional, and operational cost factors.

Socioeconomic cost factors include fuels accumulation, wildland-urban interface (WUI) protection, and climate change.  The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 aimed to increase fuels reduction on federal lands by streamlining the approval process (Donovan and Brown, 2005). However, Ingalsbee argues that to lower fire costs managers need to recognize the connection between wildfire use and fuels reduction and to coordinate their objectives (Ingalsbee, 2010).  Protection of lands in the WUI often account for up to half of total suppression spending, with that protection sometimes costing more than the structures’ value (Ingalsbee, 2010).  This area is growing rapidly and presents fire managers with intense public and political pressure to aggressively fight fires, especially as climate change exacerbates fire danger (Radeloff et al., 2018). 

Institutional cost factors include a “blank check” for suppression, use of private contractors, and inequity of federal-state cost share programs.  This “blank check” describes fire borrowing from non-suppression accounts and is related to the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 (FLAME) (Hoover and Lindsay, 2017).  FLAME attempts to budget fire costs, but it still does not introduce any penalties for overspending (Hoover nad Lindsay, 2017; Ingalsbee, 2010).  Private contractors make up over half of fire expenditures, generally cost more than public services, and provide lower-quality work (Ingalsbee, 2010).  Federal and state governments share suppression costs even when it is to protect private property and interests.  Thus, building companies, local government, and states get money from property taxes and permit fees while avoiding the costs of fire protection in the WUI (Ingalsbee, 2010).

The third category, operational cost factors, includes human and political influences, leadership accountability, risk aversion, and lack of incentives.  Fire managers experience significant pressure to aggressively suppress wildfire, even to the point of “political shows” of suppression (Ingalsbee, 2010, p. 19).  In addition, agencies themselves have residual internal pressure from the early 1900s to fight all fires.  This combination of influences makes managers feel that they will not be supported if a fire goes wrong, so they lean towards excessive and high-cost equipment (Ingalsbee, 2010).

Donovan, G.H. and Brown, T.C. (2005). Wildfire management in the US Forest Service: a brief history. Natural Hazards Observer.

Hoover, Katie, and Lindsay, Bruce R. (2017). Wildfire Suppression Spending: Background: Issues, and Legislation in the 115th Congress

Ingalsbee, T. (2010). Getting burned: A taxpayer’s guide to wildfire suppression costs.   Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology.

Radeloff et al. (2018). Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. PNAS. Volume 115, no. 13. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3314

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *