In Fire's Way: A Practical Guide to Life in the Wildfire Danger Zone

10: Sustainable Forest Stewardship

 The primary potential for home ignition is determined by the state of the house and its immediate surroundings. That largely, if not exclusively , resides on private land. And that seems to imply that the ultimate responsibility resides with homeowners. Jack Cohen, Forest Service Fire Scientist If we wish to have a sustainable regional economy that lives and even thrives with fire, we will have to learn how to welcome good wood back into our lives, whether as consumers and/or as dwellers in the Wildfire Danger Zone. We can do this without the massive federal subsidies that we as taxpayers would end up paying for anyway. As Dennis Lynch says, “Building a forest restoration infrastructure makes more sense than spending tax money fighting catastrophic forest fires that are avoidable.” And, as Jack Cohen says, “If homes have a sufficiently low home ignitability , a community exposed to a severe wildfire can survive without major fire destruction.” If we ourselves take responsibility for mitigating the wildland fire threat to our homes, then we can choose, on a local basis, whether or not we should engage in thinning or other forms of extensive wildland fuel reduction. If we choose to thin, we can do so advisedly; we can work in the context of a potential local market for the small-diameter wood products that can also offer sustainable forest stewardship to dwellers in the Wildfire Danger Zone. TEN Sustainable Forest Stewardship Men at Some Time Are Masters of Their Fates Is the federal firefighting role a public trust? Does it protect significant public goods, such as the ecological functions of public lands? Forest Service critic Robert Nelson says: Protecting private homes and other property does not benefit ecosystem health on public lands. It subsidizes property owners who locate in the Wildfire Danger Zone. It also diverts federal resources from their legitimate purpose, which is managing the federal estate. Nelson is half right. He has a point, particularly in light of the billions Congress is throwing at our fire problems. And Nelson is half wrong, because as early as , the Forest Service itself started asking Congress to redefine and clarifyitsroleversusstateandlocalresponsibilities .Whatwouldanewpolicylooklike? • Fire protection on state and private lands would be the responsibility of state and local governments. • Homeownerswouldhaveapersonalresponsibilitytopracticefiresafety. • The Forest Service would steward adjacent national forests, provide cooperative assistance to state and local fire organizations, and cooperate with suppression during emergencies. This minimalist approach would require renegotiating many existing intergovernmental memoranda of understanding. In their joint  report on new directions in federal fire policy, the secretaries of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture endorsed a move in this direction, saying: The role of federal agencies in the wildland/urban interface includes wildland firefighting, hazard fuels reduction, cooperative prevention and education, and technical assistance. No one entity can resolve and manage all interface issues; it must be a cooperative effort. Ultimately, however , the primary responsibility rests at the state and local levels. In our Constitution, it can be argued, the police power needed to address such matters as building codes, regulated land use, and other risk-reducing actions is a state and local function. Even the Forest Service itself is admitting this, saying: “the Forest Service no longer assumes primary [forest fire] protection responsibility in urbanized and developing rural areas.” Today, the most important reason for controlling fire on federal lands may be thatfiremightspreadtostateandlocallands.So,if stateandlocaljurisdictionshave SUSTAINABLE FOREST STEWARDSHIP  the responsibility to protect their own lands, they could also suppress fires on federal land that pose a danger of spreading. This responsibility could extend to preventive measures, including cooperation with the federal managers to remove timber and to pay part of the cost. There appears to be no compelling case for further transfer of administrative responsibility, though we should continue to experiment with alternatives like the governance of the Valles Caldera Trust (see below). Another idea would transform the federal firefighting apparatus into a public or private corporation that could contract its services to the states, which would use block grant money for this purpose. Insurance-like alternatives also exist, where a state could contract for long-term firefighting services, as well as purchase additional fire insurance from a private carrier. The competition would be healthy for the entire firefighting establishment, and it would relieve an unfair burden to the federal taxpayer, who presently underwrites unlimited fire insurance. Today, when we value diversity, there is simply too much...