Two lawsuits have been filed in federal court for firing operations that burned private land during the Chetco Bar Fire that eventually burned more than 191,000 acres on land managed by the US Forest Service and private landowners in southwest Oregon.
The suit, under the Tucker Act for inverse condemnation, seeks compensation for “property taken” by the USFS in its use and management of the Chetco Bar Fire. It alleges that between August 17 and 20, 2017 the USFS conducted firing operations on their property “to achieve its natural resource management objectives, and to otherwise manage its lands”.
“USFS employed planned ignitions in the form of large-scale backfires designed to artificially grow the naturally occurring wildfire to sizes much larger than if it has been left to burn naturally,” say the two complaints filed October 21. “The large-scale planned ignitions on the Chetco Bar Fire ignored political and property boundaries and used Plaintiffs’ nonfederal resources as backfire fuel, imposing the costs of the natural resource management objectives upon Plaintiffs.”
The Chetco Bar Fire started from a lightning strike during a storm on June 24 and 25, 2017 and was first reported by an airline pilot 17 days later on July 12.
The attorney representing the landowners is Quentin Rhodes in Missoula, who is not your typical barrister. He worked as a wildland firefighter for eight seasons between 1987 and 1994, serving on the Helena Hotshot crew and later as a smokejumper at West Yellowstone and Missoula. He told Wildfire Today in 2012 that he was in the first planeload of jumpers on the South Canyon Fire in Colorado in 1994, the fatal fire on which 14 wildland firefighters were entrapped and killed. In 2012 he represented owners of a Montana ranch who won a $750,000 judgement against the state of Montana when firefighters on the Ryan Gulch Fire employed firing operations which burned 900 acres of the ranch’s land.
Seems as if the landowners want the benefits of being a member of society without bearing any of the costs. There’s a lot of that going around.
Indeed
Nice job “Frank” way to grab the low hanging fruit and drag it down to your….errr, the lowest level. The political trolls on the site continue to drag the conversation down and add no value. “Either your part of the problem or part of the solution, what’s your contribution to life”
Not endorsing nor refuting the ad hominem attack, but a court of law settles such matters, not the lawyers. I commend Bill for letting such comments stand.
“‘Tis frriction’s brrisk, rough rub that provides the vital spark!”
Let it burn; the locals can fight their own fires
If I remember correctly, the dates in this lawsuit were when the NIMO Team still had the fire (Aug 17-20). Type 1 Team inbriefed August 23 (I think). NIMO Team (5 individuals, more or less) are full time USFS Employees, and then they order more fire personnel as needed. Lawyers likely had strategy to not include Type 1 Team, and thus target NIMO Team and USFS. If the landowners in question are seeking compensation for land near Brookings, I do not think those were burned off until the Type 1 Team took over, but bulldozing lines may have started under the NIMO Team, as contingency lines. Somebody else may have a better idea of timelines and actual dates of actions for the lands in question. US Government Accountability Office has reports on fire here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-424
Private property in western OR are protected by ODF or private fire protection districts. They should have been one of the parties signing the Delegation of Authority to the team managing the fire. They also should have been part of the discussion and decision to undertake burnout operations on that scale. If not, then there is a legitimate issue here. The state or private entities represent the private land owners. If they were involved in the decision making process then the landowner should be addressing them not the team or agency managing the fire..
Reason # 758 to UTF any/all orders to OR. I will never ever go to an incident in OR. Let it all burn.
Chetco Bar started in a very busy period of fires on the Rogue-Siskyou NF, Umpqua NF, and state lands in Oregon. Due to shortages of resources, a NIMO Team was assigned. They ordered resources, took what they could get, made lots of plans and maps. What they did not “get”, was the very name of that area had been given decades before to a weather event called “Chetco winds” (the dreaded east winds). They were told.
Fiddly fart (the NIMO Team never ordered an Air Ops person, or a helicopter, as Ops was confident in their NIMO ability), make more maps, and soon, yep, it jumped the river, and the Chetco winds ride again.
Goodbye NIMO, hello Type 1 Team Doug Johnson, and try to save the town of Brookings from burning down. If I remember correctly, the dates in this lawsuit were when the NIMO Team still had the fire (Aug 17-20). Type 1 Team inbriefed August 23 (I think).
The latest political trend nationally is anti all fed agencies, due to FBI serving a search warrant on a golf resort in Florida. The sentiment is more prominent in Eastern Oregon and Idaho, but expect to see it most anywhere.
Jesus Christ, here we go
I can’t wait for the political ramifications of this to roll downhill. Doesn’t matter how steep or sketchy it is (which Chetco definitely was a little) we’ll be going direct because the threat of lawsuits means indirect lines are a thing of the past.
Well then they (the public) better start paying something more than 15$ / hr for it. Try 40$ hr + … starting.
More details are needed to consider if anyone acted wrongfully, which is a possibility and testament to the complexity of fire management. These recent lawsuits are definitely going to cause a new headache for fire suppression though. Not going to help build mutual public/private trust
There is the good bad and ugly, and over the past few years out west its getting bad and ugly all over the place with no regard to private property.
I read in the complaint, that the FS got what they wanted done, but the landowners weren’t compensated.
They should pay up without having a lawsuit brought upon them.
Seems to be a little conjecture on the part of the plaintiffs, in regard to what the burnout did, vs what the fire might have done.
Still ridiculous.
Keep the feds on fed land and let homeowners fend for themselves.
Maybe fed. agencies, in situations of a natural ignition like lightning, ought to just politely tell and adjacent private landowner “Hey neighbor, just a heads up that this lightning fire is headed your way in case you want to hire your own resources to defend your property.” I think lawsuits of this type would stop pretty quickly.
Agree!!
No shit. Great attorney. Going after his own. Anything for more money!
I second that
I’ll second the first two sentences.
Just let it all burn…
I am nothing more than a Monday morning armchair quarterback, but here are a few of my own uninformed observations:
“USFS employed planned ignitions in the form of large-scale backfires designed to artificially grow the naturally occurring wildfire to sizes much larger than if it has been left to burn naturally,” say the two complaints.
How do the complainants know what the wildfire would have done if left to seek it’s own final perimeter and size? They must have special powers to predict future weather and the resulting fire behaviour.
“The large-scale planned ignitions on the Chetco Bar Fire ignored political and property boundaries….”
So this naturally occurring wildfire was going to stop and ask for permission to cross artificially drawn lines placed upon a natural landscape?
The complainants seem to want to use the “natural” argument, but only until it goes against their unnatural property lines. As an untrained armchair judge I don’t know how you get those two arguments to jive. As a former wildland firefighter, I never had a fire ask me where I wanted it to stop. Wish we had those kinds of powers, but we don’t.
Interesting times my Friends.
So don’t teams sign memorandums with county and state authorities before they even take over a fire for reasons just like this lawsuit? Your authority to act and what you are legally allowed to do are very well spelled out beforehand when it comes to suppressing a fire. Though assuming these authorities are the same everywhere would be a huge mistake. You could go from one state where their department of forestry can arrest a private landowner for interfering with firefighting operations and has near total legal authority to suppress fires as they see fit to another where you have no legal authority at all and are just there as guest of the local county judge.
What did the fire accomplish, in terms of management objectives, particularly on the private land, and how was it quantified?
Fire in oregon?
Let it burn cause all I see in that state is lawsuits and arrest for trying to do a job
Sounds like the USFS ought to get its everlovin shit together in Oregon!!