Eye On Boise

Senators decry sequestration-forced cuts in fire prevention as fire season hits

A bipartisan group of Western U.S. senators, including Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, on Friday urged the Obama administration to focus more on preventing wildfires rather than taking money from programs that clear potentially hazardous dead trees and brush to fund efforts to fight the increasingly destructive blazes, the AP reports. The administration is proposing a 31 percent cut in funding for the government's central fire prevention program one year after record blazes burned 9.3 million acres. The federal government routinely spends so much money fighting wildfires that it uses money meant to be spent on clearing potential fuels like dead trees and underbrush in national forests.

In a letter to Obama's budget director and the secretaries of agriculture and the Interior, four senators contended that approach is "nonsensical and further increases wildfire costs." Both those secretaries, Tom Vilsack and Sally Jewell, warned of the impact of the cuts as they toured the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise last month; Risch accompanied them. The cuts are being forced by sequestration, the congressionally mandated across-the-board budget cuts."It’s actually a less efficient use of government money," Jewell warned then. "It’ll cost us more in the end.” Click below for a full report on the senators' letter from the Associated Press.

Senators protest cuts to wildfire prevention funds

DENVER (AP) — A bipartisan group of Western U.S. senators on Friday urged the Obama administration to focus more on preventing wildfires rather than taking money from programs that clear potentially hazardous dead trees and brush to fund efforts to fight the increasingly destructive blazes.

The administration is proposing a 31 percent cut in funding for the government's central fire prevention program one year after record blazes burned 9.3 million acres. The federal government routinely spends so much money fighting wildfires that it uses money meant to be spent on clearing potential fuels like dead trees and underbrush in national forests.

In a letter to Obama's budget director and the secretaries of agriculture and the Interior, four senators contended that approach is "nonsensical and further increases wildfire costs."

The federal government is spending less in inflation-adjusted dollars on the main program to prevent forest fires than it did a decade ago. That's partly because of the increasing seriousness of the blazes. Firefighting costs have risen from 13 percent of the U.S. Forest Service's budget a decade ago to more than 40 percent today. Meanwhile, that agency's budget has been cut by 10 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Eight of the nine most destructive wildfire years in U.S. history occurred since 2000. Drought, rising temperatures and increasing numbers of people moving to areas that border wildlands will continue to increase the risk. At least 65 million acres of federal lands — a swath of land larger than Oregon — is at risk for fires, officials say.

The letter was signed by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and U.S. Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho).


Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.




You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus
« Back to Eye On Boise
Betsy Z. Russell
Betsy Russell covers Idaho news from the state capitol in Boise and writes the Eye on Boise blog.

Follow Betsy online:







Close

Sections


Profile

Close

Contact the Spokesman

Main switchboard:
(509) 459-5000
(800) 338-8801
Newsroom:
(509) 459-5400
(800) 789-0029
Customer service:
(800) 338-8801