Home-hardening is better than logging for fire protection

GEORGE WUERTHNER

Guest columnist

For years, I have been advocating a shift in wildfire policy from logging to home-hardening structures and communities. I see signs of a slight change in wildfire strategy, recognizing that reducing home flammability is the most cost-effective and efficient way to reduce home losses.

Nevertheless, the majority of congressional and state funding measures are aimed at “fuel reduction” projects as promoted in the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA).

I have written extensively about the problems with FOFA.

Despite abundant evidence that home-hardening is the best way to safeguard communities, funding priorities do not reflect this.

In California, 98% of wildfire prevention funding is used to log backcountry areas in the name of “fuel reduction.” Only 1% is spent on home-hardening and community protection. A total of $38 million of the state’s budget is earmarked for home-hardening, out of a total budget for “wildfire and forest resilience” of $3.6 billion.

However, new legislation introduced by Sen. Padilla (D-CA) and Sen. Sheehy (R-MT) would establish a grant program for home-hardening. The Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act would provide $1 billion to implement home hardening. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Jay Obernolte (R-CA) have introduced similar legislation into the House of Representatives.

The legislation would establish “Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Plans (CPWRP). Funding for the plans would implement public education efforts, evacuation plans, and maintain access for first responders.

The legislation also provides funds for community-scale defensible space and for hardening homes and other structures. The new community hardening grant program would be housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The bill would also add home-hardening as an allowable project under the U.S. Forest Service’s Community Wildfire Defense Grant program.

Grants of up to $250,000 for the development of a CPWRP, and an additional $10 million to implement such plans, are part of the legislation.

In addition, the legislation requires updates to wildfire hazard maps and explains how a CPWRP could be used by insurance companies when assessing community resilience.

While this funding is a drop in the bucket of what is needed, it hopefully represents a shift in policy to recognize that logging the hinterlands and most “hazardous fuel reduction” projects are ineffective in providing community protection from wildfires.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published extensively on wildfire policy.