U.S. May Send Fewer Workers to the Fire Lines

The federal government may have about 30% fewer firefighters for this year’s Western wildfire season than it did last year, according to lawmakers -- setting the stage for what could be an election-year debacle on the fire lines.

“All indications suggest that this will be an extremely challenging fire season, and we cannot afford to allow our federal firefighter capability to fall so far below last year’s level,” Reps. Charles H. Taylor (R-N.C.) and Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.) said in a letter last week to Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman, addressing funding problems.

Taylor is the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Interior and related agencies, which controls funding for the U.S. Forest Service, and Dicks is the panel’s ranking Democrat. They urged Veneman to divert money from other accounts to hire the additional firefighters. The Agriculture Department oversees the Forest Service.

An internal memo for House Appropriations Committee members painted a dire picture. It said major shortfalls in the budget have created an “immediate wildfire funding crisis.”

The staff memo warned that, “absent action, this will result in failed firefighting efforts, with potential for significant loss of lives and property.”

Last year, the Forest Service hired 10,500 temporary firefighters, but funding shortfalls mean the agency may only be able to hire 7,554 this year -- about 3,000 fewer -- according to the subcommittee.

A Bush administration official said the firefighting plan might be different this year, but the federal government would be ready.

“Nobody need be concerned that we will be unprepared for this fire season,” Mark E. Rey, the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for natural resources and environment, said. “It is my judgment that we will meet and exceed last year’s performance.”

The federal government owns vast tracts of land in the West, and the Forest Service is a key component of regional firefighting efforts.

The service said it was able to extinguish 98% of the fires it responded to last year in the critical “initial attack” phase, before they could spread.

Separately, Rey said, nine large military planes equipped for firefighting would be available to partly replace 33 tankers grounded last week. The Forest Service cited safety reasons in canceling its contracts with the private companies that own the tankers. The tankers, two of which are based at Point Mugu Naval Air Station, are especially effective in the initial attack on a fire.

The Forest Service is putting the finishing touches on its fire season plan, added Rey, who declined to reveal specifics.

“It’s not dissimilar to budgeting for war,” he said. “You’re going to be confronted with on-the-spot variables, and that’s going to affect how it works.”

But the funding problems and the grounding of the tankers have raised concerns on Capitol Hill that the Forest Service is not ready. A rash of early fires has already struck Southern California.

“I am not at all certain that Washington officials understand the dire need to put all available resources in play with all due speed,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands).

One immediate problem, said congressional aides, is a shortfall of $60 million to $95 million in an account used to prepare for fire season. Called the preparedness account, it includes money to hire temporary firefighters.

In their letter to Veneman on Friday, Taylor and Dicks urged the Agriculture Department to transfer $54 million from a separate account to hire the 3,000 firefighters. This second, “suppression account,” is dedicated to paying the cost of fighting fires that have already broken out.

Congress gave the Forest Service an increase of nearly $250 million in the suppression account this year, bringing it to $597 million, according to the House Appropriations Committee. The preparedness account remained essentially flat at about $670 million.

Nonetheless, the Appropriations Committee staff memo said both accounts were in trouble. “There are major shortfalls in both the preparedness and suppression accounts,” the memo said.

It blamed the White House Office of Management and Budget, the closest thing to a chief accountant in the government, for skimping on firefighting resources.

“While the agencies are trying to address these issues, the OMB is once again refusing to address these realistic staffing and equipment needs,” the memo said.

“OMB feels the Forest Service is wasting money on firefighting,” a congressional aide said.

Rey, the Agriculture official, said the White House was seeking to ensure that money was spent efficiently at a time of tight budgets throughout the government.

“There is a discussion among Interior, Agriculture and OMB to make sure that we are spending the money in the most effective way possible,” he said.

“We are reviewing what the severity of the season is going to be, and what our mix of assets will be.”

Predictions of a funding crisis are overblown, Rey suggested.

“We have never stopped fighting fires because we have run out of money,” he said. The Forest Service has authority to borrow money from its other accounts if the fire suppression fund is depleted, he said.

But with several recent severe fire seasons and with development continuing to extend into wild forest and scrublands, some members of Congress want to revamp the government’s system for paying the costs of fighting fires.

Money is allocated based on a 10-year average of firefighting costs, a formula that has lately proven inadequate. The Senate version of the budget would create an additional $500 million contingency fund for fire emergencies, but budget negotiations between the House and Senate have stalled.