Site search
sponsored by
News
Opinion
ENLARGE
INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev. — Most people who live in the West know where wildfire funding needs to go. It's not a secret, the drier the climate, the more likely the trees are to burn.
California, Arizona, Colorado and Idaho, among many others, have seen massive, home-consuming fires in the past few years.
Peculiar then when early this month nearly $2.8 million in federal stimulus money was awarded to Washington, D.C., for wildfire protection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Let's see, D.C. has no national forests and averages about double the precipitation Tahoe does according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.
The money will go to fund a program which keeps D.C. environmentally friendly by employing area youths to clean up parks.
Surely a worthwhile cause, but it isn't worth federal stimulus dollars for wildfire protection funds. Not by a long shot.
The decision prompted angry statements from Nevada's federal legislators, including Congressman Dean Heller and Sen. John Ensign, who last month came to Tahoe to tour areas where fuels reduction work took place.
“At a time when our economy is struggling to get back on its feet, and our own state of Nevada is under water in a severe recession, the federal government is grossly misdirecting hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” said Ensign. “This is yet another example of the federal government not being good stewards of taxpayers' dollars.”
He hit the nail on the head.
Anyone who directed these funds in the name of forest protection was completely off-base.
There are plenty of projects in and around the Lake Tahoe basin which have been handsomely funded, but more work can be done. Nevadans can go to work protecting area economic interests, providing jobs and needed wildfire prevention. You can employ a hand crew to clear fuels and protect a town's homes and businesses at a greater value to all involved than spending money to clean up trash in the capitol.
Towns across the Sierra Nevada, the Northern and Southern Rockies and throughout the arid American deserts struggle to fight fires and expend the necessary effort to prevent them through fuels reduction work every year.
Not every region is as politically popular as Lake Tahoe to spend fuels money on. Not every region is home to the influential wealthy from two states, or lives in the public eye like Tahoe does.
Fuels funding is needed throughout the West, in the poorer, rural parts of a number of states much more critically than they are needed in D.C.
For a long time we fought fires as a reactionary measure, allowing forests to thicken with fuels which would otherwise burn off periodically. As those fuel bases grew the fires became more intense and occasionally fatal. Then we learned reducing fuels made for healthier forests and reduced the risk of major fires in heavily and sparsely populated areas alike.
In order to accomplish our goal of creating healthy forests without catastrophic fires, funding is needed from Washington, not in it.
To assign fuels funds to Washington is to miss the point and disregard the safety of Western citizens.
This is nothing short of saying, “hey, we know fuels work is getting funded now, so we're going to do some political wrangling and use those funds for an urban social program.” It's a deliberate grab for federal cash, plain and simple.
I, like our federal legislators, and I hope many of you, am extremely disappointed in the decision made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In a time when wildfires and their prevention are shaping the very way we live in the West, we're throwing away money which could make a difference, however small.
Kyle Magin is a reporter for the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza. He can be reached for comment at kmagin@tahoebonanza.com.
California, Arizona, Colorado and Idaho, among many others, have seen massive, home-consuming fires in the past few years.
Peculiar then when early this month nearly $2.8 million in federal stimulus money was awarded to Washington, D.C., for wildfire protection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Let's see, D.C. has no national forests and averages about double the precipitation Tahoe does according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.
The money will go to fund a program which keeps D.C. environmentally friendly by employing area youths to clean up parks.
Surely a worthwhile cause, but it isn't worth federal stimulus dollars for wildfire protection funds. Not by a long shot.
The decision prompted angry statements from Nevada's federal legislators, including Congressman Dean Heller and Sen. John Ensign, who last month came to Tahoe to tour areas where fuels reduction work took place.
“At a time when our economy is struggling to get back on its feet, and our own state of Nevada is under water in a severe recession, the federal government is grossly misdirecting hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” said Ensign. “This is yet another example of the federal government not being good stewards of taxpayers' dollars.”
He hit the nail on the head.
Anyone who directed these funds in the name of forest protection was completely off-base.
There are plenty of projects in and around the Lake Tahoe basin which have been handsomely funded, but more work can be done. Nevadans can go to work protecting area economic interests, providing jobs and needed wildfire prevention. You can employ a hand crew to clear fuels and protect a town's homes and businesses at a greater value to all involved than spending money to clean up trash in the capitol.
Towns across the Sierra Nevada, the Northern and Southern Rockies and throughout the arid American deserts struggle to fight fires and expend the necessary effort to prevent them through fuels reduction work every year.
Not every region is as politically popular as Lake Tahoe to spend fuels money on. Not every region is home to the influential wealthy from two states, or lives in the public eye like Tahoe does.
Fuels funding is needed throughout the West, in the poorer, rural parts of a number of states much more critically than they are needed in D.C.
For a long time we fought fires as a reactionary measure, allowing forests to thicken with fuels which would otherwise burn off periodically. As those fuel bases grew the fires became more intense and occasionally fatal. Then we learned reducing fuels made for healthier forests and reduced the risk of major fires in heavily and sparsely populated areas alike.
In order to accomplish our goal of creating healthy forests without catastrophic fires, funding is needed from Washington, not in it.
To assign fuels funds to Washington is to miss the point and disregard the safety of Western citizens.
This is nothing short of saying, “hey, we know fuels work is getting funded now, so we're going to do some political wrangling and use those funds for an urban social program.” It's a deliberate grab for federal cash, plain and simple.
I, like our federal legislators, and I hope many of you, am extremely disappointed in the decision made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In a time when wildfires and their prevention are shaping the very way we live in the West, we're throwing away money which could make a difference, however small.
Kyle Magin is a reporter for the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza. He can be reached for comment at kmagin@tahoebonanza.com.
