Confusion about responsibility for suppression of wildfires?

In an article that is very timely, with another disastrous fire burning homes in Bastrop County Texas this week, Donald F. Kettl published an article in Governing exploring what he calls “confusion” about who is responsible for fighting some of the largest and most damaging wildfires. Below is an excerpt:

…Local residents increasingly expect a response that is federal and instant.

Nowhere was this more the case than during the 2011 Texas wildfires, which burned more than 3 million acres and devastated Bastrop County, near Austin. Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, who represents the area, hammered the U.S. Forest Service for failing to pre-position a giant DC-10 aerial tanker that the state could use whenever a wildfire should happen to erupt. When the Bastrop fire started, the Forest Service’s contractor fleet was busy in California, fighting an outbreak of wildfires there. The Forest Service shifted a DC-10 to Texas, but residents were infuriated as the plane sat idle for two days on a runway while Bastrop burned.

Why was the plane idle? The DC-10’s crew had to adhere to mandatory rest requirements. Furthermore, ground crews had to build a facility to supply flame retardant for the plane. But all that missed a larger issue, according to Tom Harbour, the Forest Service’s director of fire and aviation. At an oversight hearing that McCaul held in Austin after the disaster, Harbour pointed out that the Forest Service was only responsible for fighting the fires on its lands, which accounted for just 0.1 percent of all the land involved in the 2011 Texas fires. The agency had deployed its teams to help on nonfederal lands “because our friends in the Texas Forest Service asked us to help.” And they needed that help because Gov. Rick Perry had cut funding for the state’s own forest service.

But truthfully, the feds would have been in Texas no matter what. After all, firefighting has become an interagency, intergovernmental affair.

And there’s no doubt these interagency partnerships have vastly improved firefighting, but they have also blurred responsibilities, raised expectations for the federal government’s help and shifted local costs to the federal budget, even when the problems are caused by nature and the prime responsibility for attacking them rests in state and local hands. The strategy that so greatly improved the management of fires has, paradoxically, deeply confused who’s really responsible for dealing with and paying for a huge problem that is only growing.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

6 thoughts on “Confusion about responsibility for suppression of wildfires?”

  1. Bill,
    Thank you for bringing the wildfire situation in Texas more to light. It is very frustrating to hear elected officials want all the services of “big government” when their is a crisis, but when that crisis is over the same elected officials say their state does not want federal money nor supports public funding increases for federal firefighting agencies. If anyone can help me figure his issue out better, please jump in….

    JNJ

    0
    0
  2. Ha! I personally loved how Rick Perry was bashing “big government” at the same time we were protecting his state. He bashed us for not doing enough. Meanwhile I sat and watched several fires on tv and out my hotel window get big while we waited for our formal invite so as to assure the local judge or whoever that we weren’t invading! This included the Bastrop Fire. While we are on that one, let me just mention that a lot of the homes that were lost could have been saved with an hour or so of raking! Dc-10 or not. Yes bureaucracies are inefficient, thank you Captain Obvious. Hypocrits are not helpful, in case you need a new mantra Senator Oblivious.

    0
    0
  3. The Federal Land Management Agencies (USFS, BLM<,NPS, FWS, and others) like to use 42 USC Section 1856a, 'Authority to enter into reciprocal agreement; waiver of claims; reimbursement; ratification of prior agreements', as the 'legal authority' to fight wildland fire on private property.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1856a

    0
    0
  4. Is this the same State of Texas that just recently wanted to leave the rest of the States and create their own Nation without any interference by the US Government? And wanted to monitor a well-publicized Military event because of the potential that President Obama might declare martial law there? Who says you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time?

    0
    0
  5. Here is a link to “Wildland Fire Protection and Response in the United States
    The Responsibilities, Authorities, and Roles of Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Government” prepared by the The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
    Donald K. Artley, Contractor August, 2009. This is a very comprehensive and very informative report and should answer many of your questions on the subject.

    https://www.iafc.org/files/wild_MissionsProject.pdf

    0
    0

Comments are closed.