Fire relief may ignite new debate

Eager to show they are responding swiftly to California’s devastating wildfires, federal lawmakers are beginning work on a $1-billion emergency measure for disaster relief.

But the response will open two contentious issues that go beyond money and could delay the process: whether the federal government should begin subsidizing insurance for catastrophic blazes, and whether it should become more aggressive about preventing wildfires in the West.

Both could open political divisions in Washington and create conflicts with powerful regional and local interests.

“I want to help folks, but I want to condition it on state and local governments taking reasonable steps to minimize putting people in harm’s way again,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a leader in efforts to shift federal disaster funds toward prevention. “We’re encouraging people to go up and have a kind of wilderness experience, and then they turn around and expect urban-level fire protection.”

The idea of a catastrophic insurance program has been raised by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and former FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt. Such a program could prove tricky because it would probably be conditioned on more-restrictive local zoning and building rules to discourage construction of homes in fire-prone areas.

Congress is also considering short-term measures to encourage so-called “fire-wise” land use.

Lawmakers are weighing a funding boost in the emergency aid legislation for prevention programs that involve clearing dead trees and undergrowth that fuel wildfires. Such a forest-thinning program is being credited with helping save homes near Lake Arrowhead. But some environmental groups view the program as opening up protected areas to logging.

Feinstein said she had not made up her mind on specific policy options and would hold hearings to examine alternatives in the interior appropriations subcommittee that she chairs. Nonetheless, she acknowledged that issues involving land use stir up sensitive questions about the balance between federal, state and local responsibilities.

“We don’t do zoning,” she said. “It’s really local. This is the major power of local government, and it’s theirs exclusively.”

Feinstein raised the idea of federally backed insurance Wednesday on the Senate floor. “It’s . . . pretty clear to me that we have to develop some catastrophic, government-helped insurance.”

Residents now purchase fire coverage as part of their homeowner’s insurance, but that coverage does not always cover full replacement costs. And it’s unclear what will happen to rates and restrictions after the fires subside and insurers assess their losses.

Citing Allstate Corp.’s decision to stop selling new homeowner policies in California, Feinstein said: “Companies must not be allowed to cherry-pick the United States and only insure areas that are safe and secure . . . so we are rethinking this area.”

The insurance industry says no government intervention is needed.

But Witt, who headed FEMA in the Clinton administration, said the federal government should work with states to set up catastrophic-insurance funds, backed by a national fund that states could tap in major emergencies. The funds could insure against natural disasters ranging from wildfires to hurricanes. Such a proposal is being advanced in the House by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

“The problem we’ve got right now is that a lot of people have no insurance,” Witt said.

Yet if the availability of federal insurance only encourages homeowners to take greater risks, such a policy could easily backfire, in the view of UC Riverside geography professor Richard Minnich, an expert on Western wildfires. “People have a God-given right to build where they want to, but that doesn’t mean it should be at a cost to society in general,” he said. “If you throw in federal-level insurance, I can see a lot more money being tossed around without insight.”

Witt acknowledged that an insurance program would have to be carefully designed: “Washington could give incentives in a way that would help people build better and safer, but [zoning and building codes] ought to be a state and local matter.”

Feinstein urged local governments to take a hard look at their zoning. She said local officials responsible for areas prone to wildfires “ought to review future zoning plans, and take a look at whether it’s possible to rezone areas where you know you’re going to have future catastrophic fires.”

Flood-prone areas in Northern California should do the same, Feinstein added.

But, she said, people who lost their homes this week should not be denied the right to rebuild.

Meanwhile, details of the $1-billion emergency-aid proposal remain sketchy.

Some lawmakers say San Diego County alone will require that amount. The measure would pay for firefighting costs, disaster relief and reconstruction. It would also include significant funding for “hazardous-fuels reduction,” the term used in federal budget jargon for forest-thinning programs.

“We believe that is critical to make to make a substantial and immediate investment to expand fuels treatment . . . to cope with the looming forest health crisis in Southern California and across the nation,” Feinstein and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) wrote leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees.

After the 2003 wildfires that swept San Diego County, Congress authorized up to $760 million a year to clear federal lands, and a smaller program to help local communities. But those initiatives have never been fully funded, because of the stiff competition for dollars in the government’s domestic budget.

Moreover, environmental groups are wary of the forest-thinning approach; they say it can provide an entree for logging in sensitive areas.

“Federal funding has been used for old-growth logging in remote areas far from homes that may not decrease fire risk,” said Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We think if there is going to be more funding, it should be restricted to the areas right around homes and communities.”

Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said now is the time to press for an increase for forest-thinning programs. In quieter times, prevention tends to get short shrift, he said.

“When a fire is raging, those are the relatively easy dollars [to obtain],” Lewis said. “But the management dollars, where you’re looking at the longer picture, are always tougher. These circumstances give you a chance to make the sale.”

--

ricardo.alonso-zaldivar @latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com