Healthy Forests fails to protect homes from fire

All the sugarcoating and spin-doctoring in the world cannot mask the fact that the so-called Healthy Forests Restoration Act - which passed the U.S. House in May and likely will come to a vote in the Senate this September - does absolutely nothing to protect homes from wildfire.

Instead, this misguided bill severely limits the ability of the American people to participate in the management of their public lands, undermines our nation's bedrock environmental law and interferes with the U.S. court system - all to increase logging on our national forests.

While the Forest Service's own experts have found that the most effective way to protect homes from wildfire is to focus on the home and its immediate surroundings within 200 feet, this bill doesn't give a dime to rural homeowners and cash-strapped counties and states to conduct this common-sense work.

This is incomprehensible considering that while 22,000 communities across the nation are at risk from wildfire, only 12 communities are currently recognized as "firewise" by the National Fire Protection Association. River Bluff Ranch, a gated community north of Spokane, is the only such designee in Washington.

Rather, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act gives $125 million in taxpayer subsidies to the logging industry for more logging in our national forests, despite a recent Department of Agriculture report that found: "The removal of large, merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk."

That's right: zero dollars for homeowners and communities to protect themselves from wildfire and $125 million for the logging industry for more logging in national forests. This is downright criminal.

Opposition to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act isn't coming just from the conservation community. In recent weeks nearly a hundred state and local officials nationwide have written Congress saying this bill does not provide them with the resources they need to protect their communities.

A commissioner from Montana's Teton County stated, "We are in desperate need of money to protect us against wildfires. Congress should direct money to communities, not to logging projects miles away from where people live. Unfortunately, I believe this bill is little more than a ruse to boost the profits of timber companies, and not to protect communities."

While the mayor of Roslyn, Wash., noted: "With state and federal budgets strapped for cash, it is imperative that every dollar go where it is most needed and most effective - near homes and communities. Instead, this legislation needlessly guts environmental safeguards for our national forests, and severely limits public participation in the Forest Service's decision-making process."

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act is not only a ruse, but it's also based on the false premise - repeated ad nauseam by the Bush administration and GOP - that efforts to protect homes and reduce fuels are being stalled by lawsuits.

The truth of the matter is that in May the General Accounting Office - the nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress - found that of 762 Forest Service fuel reduction projects proposed over the past two years, 97 percent proceeded without litigation. How these numbers support claims of "analysis paralysis" is anyone's guess.

While the conservation community is rightfully opposed to fire legislation that fails to protect homes while limiting citizen involvement in public lands management, we staunchly support giving counties and states the money they need to make sure that all communities at risk are "firewise."

We also strongly support putting local people to work restoring the damage caused by a century of logging and over 400,000 miles of roads on our national forests. Bona fide restoration projects such as watershed restoration, road obliteration and reducing noxious weeds will not only improve the health of our forests, but will also provide an economic boom to our rural communities.

Given that only one community in Washington is "firewise" at present, Washington's elected officials should not support a bill that gives absolutely no money to protect homes and communities, while it gives the logging industry $125 million for more logging on national forests.

Copyright 2003 Cowles Publishing Company
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.