It’s wildfire season again in the American West. The season continues to grow longer and the fires more destructive. Climate change has resulted in warmer winters, which have allowed pests like the pine bark beetle to thrive, killing more than 47 million acres of forest – an area the size of the state of Nebraska. Drier conditions leave already vulnerable forests one lightning strike or careless campfire away from a major blaze.

In fact, the number of major blazes is soaring. There were 140 major fires on federal lands in 11 western states during the 1980s. In the 2000s, the average number of major fires rose to 240, a 75 percent increase. The average number of acres burned each year from 2004-2013 rose to 7.3 million, up nearly threefold from an average of just 2.7 million acres burned between 1984 and 1993. More wildfires mean more carbon is released into the atmosphere, creating positive feedback loops that lead to even more pressure on the climate. Every year since 2000, the U.S. government has spent more than $1 billion annually fighting wildfires. In 2013, wildfire suppression cost taxpayers $1.7 billion, a nearly fourfold increase since 1985.

Wildfires cost the public much more than the direct costs of extinguishing a fire. After a major burn, it takes funding to restoring the land, to prevent soil erosion, and to treat the health costs from smoke inhalation. But because Congress has been unwilling to increase funding in proportion to the growing need, the U.S. Forest Service and other government agencies have had to shift resources from other fire prevention activities like forest management and brush clearing to fire suppression. This is short-sighted and costs us more in the long run.

Since 2002, firefighting costs have exceeded fire suppression budgets in 11 out of 12 years; in three of those years, the shortfall exceeded $1 billion. In 1991, just 13 percent of the Forest Service’s budget was designated for fire suppression; in 2012, the Forest Service diverted 40 percent of its congressional appropriations to fighting fires.

Encroaching new housing developments in or near forests are also increasing firefighting costs. More than 1.2 million homes with an estimated value of $189 billion are located in forested areas prone to wildfires, according to Playing with Fire, a new report from the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS). Protecting homes and businesses forces firefighters to shift their efforts toward battling blazes that otherwise might have been left to burn if they were in uninhabited forests. The cost of fighting a fire in a developed area is 46 percent higher than fighting a fire in an area that has remained wild, according to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

Development in the Wildland-Urban Interface (or WUI) has exploded, according to UCS researchers. In 2000, 12.5 million housing units were located in forested lands prone to wildfires, a 52 percent increase over three decades earlier. Washington State leads, with more than 950,000 homes at risk of wildfire, followed by California with nearly half a million homes.

Of all the dwellings located in at-risk areas, second (vacation) homes comprise more than a third of the dwellings in six western states: Wyoming (43 percent), Arizona (41 percent), Colorado (40 percent), New Mexico (40 percent), Utah (35 percent) and Idaho (34 percent). UCS researchers note: “Although these homes may be occupied only seasonally, firefighters are compelled to defend them year-round from forest fires. Moreover absentee homeowners may also be less likely to contribute to long-term management of fire risks.“

Policy Responses

Rather than continually taking money from forest management budgets and diverting those funds to fire suppression, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have proposed the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875) which would treat wildfires like other natural disasters for which we set aside special funds and supplemental appropriations. President Obama has proposed a similar funding strategy in his budget. Such an approach ensures public agencies aren’t forced to choose between activities to prevent disasters and the urgent need to deal with disasters when they do occur.

UCS also calls upon all levels of government, working in conjunction with the insurance industry, to establish new zoning rules and building codes for building in wildfire-prone areas. California has already adopted strict building codes and imposes a $150 annual fee on homeowners in fire-prone areas to help fund forest management and fire management efforts. Colorado is presently considering such reforms.

Today, almost every citizen in this and every other country expects government to do whatever it can to prevent and mitigate the impacts of large scale disasters, whether man-made or the result of “an act of God.” Climate change is generating more volatile and severe weather events, leaving behind a trail of destruction and injury. We expect government to warn individuals of impending danger and to help affected communities deal with the devastation. We should expect more.

Government is the only institution tasked with managing society’s common resources for future generations.  Cutting funds that help us mitigate the impacts of climate change and prevent wildfires and other ensuing disasters is reckless and irresponsible. It just means the disasters will be bigger, the damage more costly to repair, and the personal tragedies more widespread.