Firefighting efforts burn through money
The equipment necessary to stave off wildfires costs a lot of money. Host Kai Ryssdal asks L.A. Times reporters Bettina Boxall and Julie Cart who's making a buck off the blazes.
An air tanker drops fire retardant on a wildfire near Fallbrook, California in late 2007. (David McNew/Getty Images)
More on Odds And Ends
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: There's been no shortage of natural disasters out here in California today. There's not much serious damage from that 5.4 earthquake that hit Los Angeles earlier, but up north near Yosemite National Park it's a very different story.
There, a wildfire has destroyed 25 homes and burned more than 29,000 acres. Officials say it's about 15 percent contained.
But a series running in the Los Angeles Times this week points out that the costs of fighting those fires often aren't contained at all.
Times reporters Julie Cart and Bettina Boxall have been working on the series for a year now.
Welcome to the program.
Bettina Boxall: Pleasure to be with you.
Julie Cart: Our pleasure.
Ryssdal: Bettina, when we start thinking about fires, obviously one of the things that comes to mind is how much we're paying to fight them. What is the dollar amount?
Boxall: The Forest Service last year spent $1.3 billion on fire suppression. The state of California spent about $1 billion.
Ryssdal: Put that into context for me though. Ten years ago, how much were we spending?
Boxall: Ten years ago, the Forest Service spent $307 million, so it's spending a billion more now.
Ryssdal: Julie, where are all those bills coming from. An extra billion dollars is a whole lot of money.
Cart: A lot more fires, a lot bigger fires. For the most part, there has been more than a decade effort to privatize federal government and that has certainly found its way into firefighting. The bills are coming from private industry.
Ryssdal: Private industry? Contractors out there fighting fires?
Cart: You bet.
Ryssdal: In what form? I mean, are they the actual firefighters in addition to support personnel?
Cart: They are the actual firefighters in certain parts of the country. In the Pacific Northwest, incident commanders told us that as many as 90 percent of the firefighters on the line were from private companies. The trend in other states is less to private firefighters but all the services -- food, sanitation, et cetera and then helicopters, air tankers, engines.
Ryssdal: Bettina, what are those camps like? When you're out there fighting a fire, do you get the creature comforts of home too?
Boxall: You certainly do. They've become very elaborate and very sophisticated. Basically, they're transporting high-tech villages to the edge of fires and they come equipped with air-conditioned office trailers with Wi-Fi and shredders and copy machines. There are shower trailers, mobile kitchens, a caterer who caters movie shoots also caters big fires. So they are not primitive operations anymore at all.
Ryssdal: Julie, the Forest Service will say, "Listen, it makes much more sense for us to contract these camps out rather than to invest in the infrastructure to keep them 365 days a year when we're only out there fighting fires for a couple of months in the late summer and fall."
Cart: They do say that and I could understand that they wouldn't want to buy ice chests and sleeping tents and things like that, but we focused on a fire called the Zaca Fire, which was the biggest fire no one ever heard of that happened in Santa Barbara last summer where there's a briefing tent for internal briefings that they're paying nearly $1,000 a day for a four month fire. I mean, that's a lot of dough. So you could say "Oh, you nickle-dimed," but it really adds up to, the fire that we looked at in particular, more than $140 million for a fire that burned a shed.
Ryssdal: Bettina, would we be having this conversation if we weren't seeing these big fires on CNN and statewide newscasts?
Boxall: Well, they would still be spending a lot of money on fires because they are getting bigger and more and more people are living in fire-prone areas so more and more homes are threatened. I think one thing that we found was that CNN and publicity was influencing the use of aviation...
Ryssdal: The big tankers and helicopters...
Boxall: The big tankers and the big helicopters, because it's very much become equated in the public mind with putting out a fire and if you don't have those in use, people think, "You're not really putting out the fire that's burning in my backyard!"
Ryssdal: I've always wondered, though, how much dropping 5,000 gallons of water on a raging forest fire across 10,000 acres will actually do.
Boxall: Sometimes it does good and sometimes it's a complete waste of effort and time and money. Neither retardant nor water put out fires. All they can do is slow it.
Ryssdal: What we're seeing now actually with the rising cost of these fires is the end result of years of government policy being "We have to put out all these fires."
Boxall: In part. It's actually more complex than that. There are other elements at work too. In the Great Basin area, there are invasive species that are causing huge fires that are burning hundreds of thousands of acres every year and the encroachment of development has complicated fires and houses are fuel. When you build a bunch of houses next to a wild land, you're basically adding fuel to the landscape. So it's a host of factors, many of which we created ourselves. It is no single thing.
Ryssdal: Julie Cart and Bettina Boxall from the Los Angeles Times. Thanks very much for coming in.
Boxall: Thank you.
Cart: Thank you.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Montreal, QC, 08/07/2008
We have read the series of 5 articles in the L.A.Times, and following your comment: "the costs of fighting those fires often aren't contained at all"!
FEODROP is the answer to solve the problem. Feodrop is a complimentary system easily adaptable to any types of helicopters (civil and military). This system has been specifically designed to allow for a precise application of fire retardants (foam, gel,as well as long-term), despite heavy winds. The main purpose is to apply the product with precision on houses to protect them from thermal radiation - WITHOUT ANY DAMAGES!
For more information: feodrop@yahoo.ca
From Oakland, CA, 08/01/2008
I worked as a Forest Service Hotshot and Helitack crewmember throughout numerous states and summer fire seasons (seasonal work: no benefits). My spike camps were far from "elaborate and very sophisticated", and the rashes I got from working and sleeping in the same pair of clothes for weeks at a time could attest to that. Sure, main camps have showers, generators, etc., but command level people need communications, weather, and computer equipment to safely direct and support people on the line. And since they're more experienced (and older), they get AC and cold drinks.
I started wildland firefighting on contract crews based in Oregon. It was much cheaper for the government to use these less experienced and part time crews than paying for permanent full time workers, regardless of the severity of the season. For contract crews, if there are no fires, you get paid nothing. This is much cheaper for the government over the long run, but expensed certainly peak during severe fire seasons. Would anyone rather have their house burnt up instead of paying a few extra dollars in taxes?
I think a more balanced approach to fire suppression (letting some fires burn, reducing fuel loading) and restricting/or at least stop subsidizing irresponsible sprawling suburban development in known fire prone areas is worthy of more attention, but doesn't sound as sensational.
From Denver, CO, 07/31/2008
Bias Bias Bias ????
I hate government waste as much as the next person whether it is through private contracting or $25k coffee maker. However, it seemed as though this story and the reporters from California provided information that could be easily construed as a biased report. For example the increase in spending has gone from $300 Million to $1.3 Billion, but there have been a lot more fires. I question why there was not a dollar to acre analysis provided or something similar – I suspect that with “more fires” there is most likely some parity or reasonable justification for the increase. The other comment that caught my attention in the story was the Santa Barbra fire and the $146 million cost and one shed was lost – but how many homes were saved? Instead of looking at what was lost it may have been more appropriate to look at what was saved or protected - if none or few were at risk, it would given more credence to the story and the points being made.
From Reno, NV, 07/30/2008
Thanks for airing this story; the L.A. Times can't zell a lot of papers in any case.
The two Coloradoan's comments illustrate the complex issues and opinions involved. Wildland firefighting is a tough go, for sure.
My experience was that the Forest Service can be Pentagon-like in their approach to supply management, with fire operations being kind of a cash cow. And privatization is certainly on the rise. Could be a culture clash there.
Another money angle is the almost immediate supply of ('I fought the') XYZ Fire t-shirts at these camps.
Too many fires are started by thoughtless locals using equipment or toys, and weekenders who insist on a campfire. The recent lightning-swarm California fires were a fluke that nonetheless may portend the future as if climates warm up...
From CO, 07/30/2008
Terrie,
I don't think they're blaming firefighters for the cost overruns, as everyone respects those who put their lives on the line to fight these fires. I think the target is primarily those companies that overcharge local and state governments for the limited services they provide (i.e. the $1000/day tent). I think it's also useful to mention that fires are a normal part of the ecosystem in the west, but that human intrusion in the mountains (us in CO included) are making these large fires much more complex to fight.
From CO, 07/29/2008
I work for the Colorado State Forest Service. I share an office with a lady who just came back from working on one of the California fires. She spent almost three weeks sleeping in a tent and using Porta Potties. If you're going to report on what happens on fires, you should talk to the people who actually leave their families for weeks at a time to work on them...not a couple of reporters who are trying to sell newspapers. I listen to your show almost every day on my drive home from work, and knowing firsthand what the people working on fires endure, I was disappointed that you didn't check the facts and talk to the players. It makes me wonder what other stories I hear that aren't giving me the full picture. I will certainly be sharing this story with my colleagues and will be interested in their reactions.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.