Is Rural Development Responsible for Wildfires?
by Bryan Knowles Thursday, June 15, 2000
With the National Interagency Fire Center reporting that 63,623 wildfires have consumed over 4 million acres of land as of August 7, the year 2000 is quickly proving to be the most destructive since 1988 when over 7 million acres were claimed by fires. National firefighting efforts and resources are already strained with over 12,000 firefighters, smokejumpers and military personnel deployed in the West. Considering that vast portions of the nation are experiencing record temperatures and droughts, and that the calendar year is just now entering the normal wildfire season, this year may go down as the worst for wildfires in over half a century.
As the costs of fighting the wildfires and compensating those that have lost their property and homes continues to soar, many are increasingly questioning the causes of such fires and why they are exacting more damage on communities than in past years. This past decade saw the costs of property damage from wildfires grow to $3.2 billion, an increase of nearly six times the previous decade. Despite increases in federal spending on wildfire prevention, the average number of homes lost to wildfires over the past decade soared to nearly 1,200 per year. Numerous environmentalists claim that the increase of property damage and severity of wildfires is the result of increased development in rural, wooded areas, while others lay the blame on poor forest management practices by the federal government.
On One Hand...
Wildfires are increasing the result of civilization's encroachment on wilderness areas. In fact, an estimated 90 percent of all wildfires are ignited by people, as opposed to lightning and other natural phenomenon. Western states that have witnessed significant population growth over the past decade, such as Colorado, Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico, are now experiencing massive wildfires and high levels of property damage.
Increased residential and commercial development in rural, heavily wooded areas directly increases the opportunities for fires - considering that it only takes a spark from a grill or poorly discarded cigarette to start a blaze. More homes in volatile areas puts more stress on firefighting resources. States and local governments must improve zoning laws that will create a buffer zone between development and wilderness.
On the Other Hand...
Wildfires are natural occurrences that are essential for ensuring healthy forests and wilderness areas. The recent increase in home and property damage from wildfires is the result of poor forest management by the federal government rather than increased development. For much of the past century, the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have engaged in a policy of completely suppressing wildfires.
This prevention effort has created forests that are littered with dead foliage and unchecked undergrowth that fuel wildfires, as they are highly combustible, especially in years of low precipitation. To lower the amounts and costs of property damage, the federal government must increase funding for controlled burns that rejuvenate forests and reduce the chances of wildfires.
Wildfires are currently raging in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
During the 1990s, the yearly average number of wildfires was 106,306 with 3.6 million acres burned.
During the 1930s, the yearly average number of wildfires was 167,277 with 39.1 million acres burned.
According to U.S. Forest Service estimates, nearly 40 million Americans reside in rural areas with dense vegetation growth.
In 1988, humans caused 138,238 wildfires compared to the 16,335 attributed to lightning.
In 1996, eight battalions of soldiers were deployed to fight wildfires.
National Interagency Fire Center, U.S. Forest Service, United States Fire Administration, New York Times
|