Firefighting has changed to confront fires that start earlier, burn longer and collectively consume more acres. Firefighting has also changed because the principal objective in the new era is not always to stop fires from burning forest or prairie; it's often to protect houses that have been built in the wildland-urban interface.
This shift to “point protection,” firefighting jargon for defending structures, often at the expense of suppressing fires, makes a big difference in how much it costs to fight fires and who benefits from the effort. And in the interest of fair taxation, it raises the question of who pays the bills.
Other factors, such as terrain type and fixed mobilization expense, help to explain differences in fire costs, but there's widespread recognition of the preeminent role of structure defense.
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture official Mark Rey, 8.4 million houses were built in wildfire-prone areas across the nation in the 1990s. “You can't say that's made fire seasons more severe,” Rey said, “but you can say unequivocally that it's made firefighting more expensive.”
Jim Smalley, manager of Firewise, a national program that educates homeowners on how to protect their property from wildfire, said this: “The bottom line is you've turned these highly trained and experienced firefighters Š into a very expensive maintenance crew.”
Now consider that Montana pays its portion of firefighting bills from the state's general fund, of which the principal components are: individual income taxes (45 percent), property taxes (10 percent), corporation income taxes
(9 percent), natural resource taxes (9 percent), and vehicle fees (7 percent). It's a fund that almost all Montanans contribute to, and that, in return, pays for the public functions that benefit almost all Montanans, such as education, health care and prisons.
Use of the general fund for firefighting makes sense when the effort protects public lands, public resources and public facilities. But when the general fund is used to pay for protection of private structures, a subsidy is created, one that hasn't been justified by expressed need or through public dialogue.
Fifty-five percent of Montana's residents live in municipalities, where they pay for their fire protection through local levies. It's safe to estimate that the same percentage of Montana businesses are located in municipalities and pay for their own fire protection. Why should this majority of Montana residents and businesses also bear much or any of the fire protection costs of those who build in fire-prone areas?
Montana's legislators ended the special session by appropriating $82 million for firefighting this year and next. Resting on habit, they tapped the general fund, which, at the moment, is flush and had no defenders of its virtue.
The appropriation expires in two years, presenting an opportunity for legislators to correct the system. Other Western states, including Arizona, California and Oregon, have already acted to strengthen building codes, establish new local zoning authority, and create other incentives and mandates that foster homeowner accountability.
En route to those same ends, Montana legislators should use the interim study process they created to determine the exact costs of defending wildland structures, then draft legislation to assign the costs to those responsible for them.
This kind of accountability would benefit Montana's tax system, and it may help to influence how and where houses are built in the new era of fire.
Bob Decker is executive director of the Helena-based Policy Institute, which advocates for public policy based on economic justice, fair taxation, corporate accountability and environmental responsibility.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)