The devastating wildfire season of 2000 set in motion a series of strategies that included spending federal money to thin forests around structures in what scientists call the “wildland-urban interface.”
And it made sense. Those were the areas in which firefighters waged the most dangerous and pitched battles to save houses and businesses.
However, a recent study led by a University of Colorado researcher calls into question the efficacy of the strategy and the government’s commitment to it. Only 11 percent of wildfire mitigation efforts over a five-year period took place in this high-risk zone, according to the study, which outlined complications of working in that area.
It’s time to revisit these federal firefighting policies for reasons of fiscal prudence, and to ensure they are the best way to promote safety.
Firefighting resources are limited, and must be spent in the most effective way possible.
The CU study, led by research scientist Tania Schoennagel, found much of the land in 11 Western states treated with federal money was more than 6 miles away from the wildland-urban interface. It also said most property in the zone — about 70 percent — is privately owned, which limits the federal government’s ability to treat the areas.
The study suggests the federal government ought to shift its fire mitigation emphasis to private land. It says reducing flammable materials within 100 feet of private homes has been most effective in preventing houses from burning.
Clearly, it makes sense to get rid of burnable stuff near your home or business. But we disagree with the idea of spending significant amounts of public money to treat private property.
Wildfires are a constant threat in Colorado. If people choose to live or own businesses in remote areas, surrounded by forest, it’s incumbent upon them to create a defensible space around their property.
Thinning forests and clearing underbrush near their homes should be part of that effort — the property owners’ effort.
This is no small matter or isolated problem. People are moving into wild areas in increasing numbers, which is easy to understand.
But if you choose to live there, you also choose to assume the risk.
Furthermore, there are other resources in publicly owned wildlands that can benefit from fuel reduction efforts, and have been the subject of federal projects.
Thinning forests in watersheds and around reservoirs can minimize fires that produce ash and degrade drinking water. And sensitive ecosystems or threatened wildlife species benefit from fire mitigation work.
Government efforts cannot — and should not — prevent all wildland fires. But proper targeting of federal dollars can make a difference in the lives of residents and the health of forests.
