Even as the Eagle Creek Fire continues to damage our beloved Columbia River Gorge, it is time for the federal government to acknowledge the important role wildfires play in forest management. In other words, it is time for a close examination of fire prevention and suppression.
U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a former congressman from Montana, announced this week that he would instruct land managers to be more aggressive in cutting down small trees and clearing underbrush. The idea is to proactively limit fires “through aggressive and scientific fuels reduction management.”
This is an important first step in limiting wildfires, which are setting records for size and intensity on an almost annual basis throughout the Western United States. For too long, forest management has amounted to little more than mismanagement under policies designed to leave the forests as close to their natural state as possible. The truth is that a forest’s natural state is to grow until a wildfire clears it out — an approach that is impractical as civilization encroaches ever closer.
The U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department have spent about $2.1 billion this year suppressing wildfires, already matching the record set in 2015. And fire season is far from finished. With climate change contributing to exceptionally dry forests and federal policy allowing for the growth of plenty of fire fuel, blazes are “more damaging, more costly and threaten the safety and security of both the public and firefighters,” Zinke said. “I’ve heard this described as ‘a new normal.’ It is unacceptable that we should be satisfied with the status quo.”
For years, lawmakers from Western states have attempted to impress upon their colleagues the need to address a growing issue. That has often amounted to little more than spitting in the wind as wildfire suppression has devolved into a counterproductive Catch-22. Money for forest management is annually borrowed for needed fire suppression, leading to fire-prone forests, leading to even more catastrophic wildfires the following year.
Last week, a group of Western senators — including Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray — sent a letter to Senate leaders urging changes in funding. “Instead of robbing one set of priorities for another, what the nation needs is a consistently funded Forest Service that can address wildfire prevention, as well as emergency wildfire suppression, in the same year,” they wrote.
The issue is complex, especially with many members of Congress loathe to approve any increase in spending. It also requires a thoughtful examination of the need for fighting wildfires rather than allowing them to burn unless they are endangering structures or people. After all, forests have spent millennia enduring and recovering from wildfires.
But fires endanger water supplies, destroy wildlife habitat, and wreak ecological havoc that has economic consequences. Additionally, as last week’s smoke and haze from the Eagle Creek blaze demonstrated, fires can take a human toll even when they are 30 miles away.
There are valid reasons for working to prevent and suppress wildfires. The alternative is too costly and can be too damaging. But there is a pressing need for change in how the federal government approaches those efforts. Improved forest management and more reliable funding will be essential for effectively dealing with a problem that shows no sign of abating.
