Landowners sue state of Alaska for vegetation that burned in 2009 fire

rex creek railbelt fire complex

The Rex Creek fire on August 4, 2009, part of the Railbelt Complex in Alaska. Photo: ADF

According to an article at newsminer.com, four landowners are demanding that the state of Alaska give them at least $100,000 each because some vegetation burned on their property during the 636,224-acre Railbelt Complex southwest of Nenana in 2009.

The landowners claim in the lawsuit that fire managers failed to adequately mopup the fire following some rains, and the fire later flared up, burning vegetation on their property which decreased the value. The lawsuit says firefighters lit a backfire on their property in order to stop the fire’s spread.

This brings to mind Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg’s lawsuit against the Billings Fire Department over the loss of trees and ground cover on his property during an 1,100-acre fire in 2008.

The 747 Supertanker made it’s first drop on an actual fire in North America on the Railbelt Complex.

Here is an article on Wildfire Today containing a video of an aerially-ignited firing operation on the Railbelt Complex.

Share
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Bill Gabbert. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bill Gabbert

Wildland fire has been a major part of Bill Gabbert’s life for several decades. After growing up in the south, he migrated to southern California where he lived for 20 years, working as a wildland firefighter. Later he took his affinity for firefighting to Indiana and eventually the Black Hills of South Dakota where he was the Fire Management Officer for a group of seven national parks. Today he is the creator and owner of WildfireToday.com and Sagacity Wildfire Services and serves as an expert witness in wildland fire. If you are interested in wildland fire, welcome… grab a cup of coffee and put your feet up. Google+

One thought on “Landowners sue state of Alaska for vegetation that burned in 2009 fire

  1. too bad the state couldnt counter sue for lack of fuels management on their properties, thus necessitating the counter firing operations to stop the fire. might they be happier if firefighters didnt try to limit the spread of the fire and let it burn their structures and possessions instead?