Tern/Raven fire as seen from Pelican Valley (Jim Peaco; August 1994 )

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Originally published Thursday, August 21, 2014

Western states are ill-equipped to take ownership of federal lands because of the spiraling cost of fighting wildfires on national forests, according to a new report from a Denver-based conservation group.

The report by the Center for Western Priorities found that in a handful of Western states in 2011 and 2012, the Forest Service spent more to quell wildfires than what the states spent on their entire law enforcement budgets.

But advocates of state ownership argued states would manage forests more proactively than the Forest Service through activities like logging and hazardous fuels removal, lessening wildfire costs over time.

The report comes as conservative state lawmakers in the West pursue legislation to acquire federal lands or study the pros and cons of doing so. Conservationists, sportsmen’s groups and Democrats have generally resisted the idea, saying the lands should remain under federal ownership and managed on behalf of all Americans.

Since 2001, the federal government has spent an average of $3.1 billion annually on wildfires, the CWP report said, citing a study by a former researcher for the Congressional Research Service.

The report tallied what the Forest Service spent suppressing wildfires in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming in 2011 and 2012.

Top expenditures in 2011 included $230 million in Arizona and $155 million in New Mexico. In 2012, the Forest Service spent a high of $169 million in Idaho. But that’s just what the Forest Service spent on suppression. It spends significant additional funds on wildfire preparedness and hazardous fuels work, according to a 2013 CRS report.

The suppression figures came from Forest Service data that had been compiled for CRS. A Forest Service representative could not be reached to verify the numbers.

The 2012 and 2011 fire seasons were the third- and fourth-most expensive, respectively, in Forest Service history, according to data from the National Interagency Fire Center.

“Calling on states to seize public lands may make for great political theater, but it makes for horrible policy,” Center for Western Priorities’ policy director Greg Zimmerman said in a statement.

“If public lands are transferred, states would have to assume the firefighting responsibilities,” he added. “The money to pay for this critical service will have to come from somewhere. One bad fire season would risk a state’s financial stability.”

The costs of wildfires have risen dramatically over the past decades as a result of an accumulation of trees and underbrush, persistent drought, and the expansion of homes in the wildland-urban interface.

Plus, since 1960, the eight largest fire years by acres have all occurred after 2000.

Just yesterday, the Forest Service released a report highlighting that since 1995, the portion of its budget devoted to wildfire has risen from 16 percent to 42 percent, forcing cuts to forest restoration activities, capital improvements, endangered species recovery and research.

Zimmerman said that calls by Western politicians to acquire federal lands make for good sound bites but that they are “conveniently silent” about the costs of maintaining those lands and protecting residents.

Ann Hutchinson, a wildland fire training specialist who is a member of the Public Lands Foundation, a Bureau of Land Management employees group, said that if states acquired federal lands, they’d need to fund fighting wildfires and also would lose their share of the more than $400 million that is doled out each year by the federal government in payments in lieu of taxes (PILT).

While data on the costs and benefits of owning federal lands are inherently complicated, a CRS report made for Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) last September found that the costs of maintaining federal lands in the Gem State — including congressional appropriations, litigation costs, federal highway money and PILT — are far higher than what they returned in timber, oil and gas, grazing and recreation fees.

But Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory (R), who is a leading national advocate for state ownership of federal lands, said much of the costs of managing federal forests could be reduced through better management by officials who are accountable to the local public.

“We certainly can’t afford to manage our forests the way the federal government manages them,” Ivory said in an email in response to the Center for Western Priorities report. “We can’t afford not to manage the forests the way states already manage them for the health AND productivity. Under present federal management, the forests are neither healthy nor productive.”

Ivory in 2012 founded the nonprofit American Lands Council, whose mission is to “secure and defend local control of land access, land use and land ownership.”

ALC argues that preliminary studies show states manage their lands at less cost per acre or visitor than the federal government and that states “stand to gain overall revenue while still acting as responsible stewards for future generations” if they acquire federal tracts.

“The only solution big enough to protect and secure the health AND productivity of our forests and public lands is to have them managed by representatives directly elected by, and directly accountable to, those whose lives and livelihoods are directly dependent upon the wise, long-term stewardship of those lands, rather than distant, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies,” Ivory said.

The CRP report counters that states would have few options to finance wildfire protection, at least in the near term.

“They could sell off public lands; raise fees on ranchers and other public land users; increase the pace of large scale logging; or rapidly develop lands with oil wells, mines and roads at the expense of other important uses of public lands like hunting, hiking and camping,” the report said. “And ironically, selling public lands to private owners for housing and other development might result in even greater wildfire costs.”

Legal experts say there is little chance any states will succeed in a large-scale acquisition of federal lands without congressional action — which is also considered unlikely in this political climate.

Western governors are split on the issue, though members of both parties conceded it is unlikely Congress or the federal agencies will allow a transfer of lands (Greenwire, June 11).

SUPPORT: If you enjoyed this story produced by Environment & Energy Daily, please consider supporting WyoFile. WyoFile pays a subscription fee to E&E for the right to bring E&E stories to our readers. Click here to support WyoFile.

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. “[…] Ken Ivory (R), who is a leading national advocate for state ownership of federal lands…”

    Ken Ivory is the legislators who penned Utah’s bizarre ultimatum that federal lands be “returned” by 31 December 2014. He encouraged the nuts in Carbon, Kane and other Utah counties to demand that their sheriffs be recognized as the ultimate authorities and given permission to arrest BLM officials (the same ones who terminated law enforcement contracts with those sheriffs because they were nuts).

    The only idea more frightening than Wyoming legislators managing federal lands is Utah legislators managing federal lands. Of course they haven’t thought this through. Of course they’d go running to DC for money at the first lightning strike. Of course they’d drive the state directly into bankruptcy.

    This piece throws a helpful bucket of cold water on the fantasy of state control. But the characters involved in this story (Cliven Bundy, Ken Ivory, Western governors “split on the issue”) make the whole thing seem more like fantasy football than a very real political drama about the future of public lands.

  2. Where does the government get the funds to fight those fires on “Federal Lands”? Well i’ll tell you from we the people. First off those “Federal Lands” are not Federal they are State Lands (see Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution). So the Federal Government is taxing us (the citizens) to take care of something that they are not allowed to own in the first place, so that they (the Federal Government) can manage or mismanage more commonly (control). Now let’s think about this. The Federal Government is in control of something that is barred from controlling and charging we the tax payers for them controlling it. When the states would likely do a better job cheaper and instead of charging us would likely be paying us a dividend. Hmmm…….. So who is fooling whom?

  3. Seems like the extra revenue generated from assuming federal mineral royalties would easily be able to cover the costs of fighting forest fires no matter how the forests are managed.

    While I like the idea of Wyoming managing federal lands within our state, I don’t think I would necessarily appreciate the way other western states would choose to manage their share of federal lands. You can look at how other western states currently manage their state land to get an idea of how they might manage any federal land they took over. For instance, to enter state land in Arizona you have to have a permit. In New Mexico there is no public access to state land. In Wyoming we don’t allow any overnight camping or camp fires.

    Dealing with the NFS and BLM can be a hassle, but at least you know what you’re getting. If the states took things over you’d have a dozen different ways of managing the forests. That would be incredibly complicated and confusing for tourists and industry alike.

  4. Ken Ivory, the shady Utah legislator and founder of the American Lands Council, is just blowing smoke…

    Put him under hot lights and he might confess the real purpose of American Lands Council is to enable private persons( read: The Rich ) and corporations to acquire federal lands as their own private fiefdoms, or maybe outright ownership eventually, after they pass briefly thru the hands of the States , who Ivory knows cannot come close to affording to manage them under the most optimistic of scenarios.

  5. People speak loosely of “returning” public lands to state ownership, but the states never owned them. The federal government bought the Louisiana Purchase lands from France and then disposed of portions through the Homestead Acts, grants to states, mining patents and other programs. The federal government (i.e., taxpayers, the public) retain ownership of the rest of the land. The National Forests were set aside for watershed protection, among other uses. Public lands, such as National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, are critically important for wildlife, including in some instances, endangered species. Public lands provide the only opportunity for many people to hunt, fish, camp and recreate. The states cannot afford to manage these lands. A healthy debate about logging versus allowing renewable forest resources to burn all of the time is worthwhile; pretending that Congress will donate public lands to the states is fantasy.