Wildfire Politics: What California and Congress Get Wrong About The Fiery Spectacles
Smoke rising from a wildfire in Palm Springs-South County in California. Photo by Rex Hambly.
Behemoth wildfires are torching California, and bickering between the state government and Congress is only adding fuel to the fire. Controversies over firefighting philosophy, urban housing laws, and Congressional funding have hindered cooperation between the Golden State and federal government.
The growing threat of climate change has also presented a major hurdle for political officials as they work to address forest management and an increase in housing density in forested areas. Because California forests are incredibly dense, dry underbrush can make fires swell to extreme sizes and release record levels of carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, despite the historic threat, the federal government’s approach to firefighting has diverged significantly from that of the state government over the past century.
In the early 1900’s, the U.S. Forest Service advanced a “no burn” policy in which the federal agency committed itself to extinguishing blazes immediately. Things changed in the 1960’s when new ecological research came out in support of more controlled burns. The federal government slowly adopted this technique as a way to deal with overgrown forests. In contrast, since its founding in 1905, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has focused on putting out fires as soon as possible, especially those posing an imminent threat to infrastructure and populated areas.
The two strategies clash frequently, resulting in confusion over evacuations and scarce firefighting resources. State officials argue that the national response fails to factor in climate change. Federal officials assert that their approach greatly reduces the future risks of larger fires. However, despite forest management being a major point of contention between the two groups, other states may provide a promising model for California to follow.
In 1998, Florida passed a law establishing a certification system for citizens to receive training on safe burning techniques. So far this year, the Sunshine State has safely burned 1.6 million acres. Despite being 2.5 times bigger, California has only burned about 35,000 acres. Due to pressure from insurance companies and environmental regulations, California has not yet created a certification program of similar robustness. The state could work with the insurance lobby to relax the restrictions preventing them from fully endorsing prescribed burning, especially as more fires threaten the urban landscape.
Approximately one in three houses across the country are located in areas historically prone to wildfires called the “wildland-urban interference” (WUI). Between 1990 and 2010, nearly 50 percent of California homes were constructed in the WUI zone. Arguably, high housing costs have encouraged more people to move into these more affordable, less populated regions of the state.
There are many mitigation measures California could pursue with the help of the federal government to disincentive people from migrating to these dangerous areas. For one, the state could create laxer zoning laws permitting denser housing within cities. It could also set aside funds to subsidize housing when natural disasters strike.
Stricter building codes could also help. Just as homes in San Francisco are built with earthquake-resistance in mind, WUI homes should be built consistent with natural hazards. At the local level, residents should be expected to maintain a certain level of vegetation around their properties and be discouraged from allowing overgrowth.
These state strategies also require the federal government to step up its funding. Congress was applauded in 2018 for adding a “wildfire fix” to their annual appropriations bill. It created a $2.25 billion fund the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) could tap into to pay for growing firefighting costs. This fund, which increases annually by $100 million until 2027, has helped USFS and DOI not to divert money from other critical activities to deal with wildfires. This fund, though, is not enough.
Last month, Congress passed a stopgap measure delegating $28.6 billion to disaster relief measures but not a single penny to fighting climate change. The temporary assistance expires in December, at which point states will face a greater burden to fund their fire prevention efforts. CAL FIRE, for instance, is estimated to have spent $200 million more than their budgeted amount for the current fiscal year on emergency expenditures as of mid-September. The federal government should rapidly address the consistent underfunding on their part. Democrats have an excellent opportunity to do so by passing President Biden’s Build Back Better Act.
From creating their own weather to forcing widespread school closures, wildfires are changing the way people live. Thanks to climate change, these scorching chemical reactions are only getting worse. Recently, the Dixie Fire, the second largest fire in California’s history, burned nearly one million acres in three months since mid-July of 2021. The possibility of another megafire ravaging the state is enormous, as 40 percent of the state faces D4 exceptional drought.
Arguments between the state and federal government over firefighting jurisdiction can lead to a small fire exploding into a monstrous inferno. Instead of playing the blame game, California should reevaluate its wildfire strategy and housing laws, and Congress must substantially increase its spending. This is the time for leaders at all levels of government to work together on a cohesive solution to the West’s burning dilemma. Political inaction is a tinderbox for disaster the country simply cannot afford.
Max Hermosillo (CC ’25) is a staff writer at CPR and a Political Science major from San Jose, California. His interests include Marvel, Hispanic literature, and constitutional law.