|
Bush Administration Bails on Promises to Protect Communities from Wildfires Budget Numbers Fall $285 Million Short of “Healthy Forests” Agreement Washington, D.C. – Bush administration budget numbers reveal that promises made during the passage of the “Healthy Forests Initiative” are not necessarily promises kept in the budget process, raising important questions from conservationists, Senators and others. The final bill, signed by President Bush in December, called for $760 million in funding for fuel reduction, but the administration’s FY 2005 budget breaks that promise by only earmarking $475 million. This means communities will have even less resources for fire protection than promised them when the President signed the bill last year. The House Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the Forest Service budget today, following similar hearings in the House Interior Appropriations Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week. “The Bush administration is not prepared to back up their community protection rhetoric with resources,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “The budget is where the rubber meets the road, and the administration has failed to meet its obligation – and promise – to Westerners and all Americans.” While $285 million is missing from the budget for fuel reduction, the Bush administration did propose a $9 million increase in funding for commercial timber sales and an extra $5 million for planning timber sales in the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska. The administration’s plans for America’s forests also include a massive timber sale in the Siskiyou Wild Rivers region of Southern Oregon, site of the 2002 Biscuit fire. “Instead of spending critical resources on old growth logging, the administration should be earmarking funds for prescribed burns and honest fuel reduction,” said Mike Francis, Director of National Forest programs at The Wilderness Society. Even Senators that supported the Bush administration’s bill were upset by their lack of support for responsible funding. According to the Billings Gazette, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) expressed his disappointment to Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist, at a hearing last week: “’I am profoundly disappointed,’ Wyden told Rey, who has jurisdiction over the Forest Service. ‘It seems to me that you are taking the 'health' out of Healthy Forest.’ ‘This is a breach of what Congress intended,’ Wyden said.” The law called $760 million for fuel reduction, only half of which had to be earmarked for areas surrounding homes and communities. Even before passage, the Bush Administration expressed concern about this modest level of funding, saying it is “above the increased funding levels the administration requested and continues to support for FY 2004.” What was billed as a compromise is now revealed as a complete surrender to the Bush administration and the timber industry,” said Pope. The 2003 fire season, which ended with the tragic fires in Southern California, burned 3.9 million acres, just below the 10-year average of 4.2 million acres. The cost of lost property alone in the wake of last fall’s Southern California fires will reach upwards of $2 billion. We can take steps now to ensure that cash-strapped states have the resources to prevent losses of this magnitude in the future. “Spending money at the front end to help homeowners and communities clear brush and small trees in their immediate vicinity would be a sound investment. Wasting funds on subsidies to timber companies and logging in the backcountry is not,” said Francis. Firefighting costs are once again expected to far surpass funding levels, perpetuating the Forest Service’s chronic habit of borrowing funds from important programs like fuel reduction to pay for fire suppression. Last fall, conservationists joined with scientists and public officials to outline the most egregious provisions of the wildfire policy, including: · Failing to provide increased protections or funding for homes at risk of wildfire; · Creating loopholes that would allow for logging of old-growth trees; · Providing no protections for remote roadless areas; · Weakening the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); · Undermining the public's legal rights to meaningfully participate in public lands decisions; · Interfering with our independent judiciary. The Bush plan stands in sharp contrast to a proposal by the conservation community that would have focused aid on communities at risk from wildfire. Conservation groups have embraced a Community Protection Plan, emphasizing fuel reduction projects and "firewise" protections along the boundaries of communities adjacent to forest lands. |
