To: Craig Thomas  From: Ken Mullins  Re: Regulatory Governance for Wildfires  Date: February 1, 2016  ______________________________________________________________________________  Misunderstandings about the responsibilities of wildland fire agencies creates confusion among the different levels of government about who is responsible for regulating wildfires. In examining the pros and cons of regulatory governance, this report provides arguments in favor of and against wildfire regulation by federal agencies.  Arguments in Favor of Wildfire Regulation by Federal Agencies  Federal agencies provide wildland fire protection for over 640 million acres in the United States. The arguments in favor of wildfire regulation by federal agencies are:  ●   Minimum protection for all citizens; ●   Economic cost of environmental protection; and ●   Transboundary and jurisdictional migration.

 Minimum Protection  Federal regulations rely on technical expertise (May, pp. 158) to establish a minimum threshold, ensuring that citizens in all states enjoy a minimal level of protection (Scheberle, pp. 373-374). Empirical evidence defends this argument, where twenty states have laws prohibiting environmental agencies from adopting requirements more stringent than those established by federal agencies (Scheberle, pp. 374). For wildfires, federal agencies establish regulations that protect federal lands from the adverse effects of wildfire. These regulations include:  ●   Keeping wildland fires from spreading to adjacent jurisdictions during initial attack; and ●   Protecting communities adjacent to federal lands by taking immediate suppression

actions on wildfires threatening private lands. Demonstrated by the higher level of protection national forests receive compared to state forests (Scheberle, pp. 376), federal agencies provide levels of minimum protection to all citizens that state and local agencies cannot.  Economic Cost  Environmental protection is expensive for state and local governments (Scheberle, pp. 385). Without federal regulation, state and local agencies may be reluctant to provide environmental protection due to these economic costs (Scheberle, pp. 375). This is particularly relevant to the economic cost of wildfires. In 2015, federal agencies spent over $1.7 billion on wildfires, while California state and local agencies alone spent $209 million. Since it is expected that wildfires will increase in size by 50% by 2020 and by more than 300% by 2100, it is unlikely that states will have adequate resources to respond to these larger, more intense wildfires.   Transboundary and Jurisdictional Migration  Transboundary and jurisdictional migration refers to environmental problems not confined to one particular location. Air and water pollution provide empirical evidence of the challenges associated with transboundary migration. In the absence of federal regulation, state agencies are unable to control areas impacted downwind or downstream from pollution sources. Wildfires spread rapidly, they present similar jurisdictional challenges. When wildfires cross jurisdictional

and state boundaries, conflicts between local and state agencies arise due to overlapping properties. A key regulation for federal agencies to suppress wildfires is to prevent them from spreading across adjacent jurisdictions. This helps reduce the conflict between local and state agencies and limits the impact of transboundary and jurisdictional migration.  Arguments Against Wildfire Regulation by Federal Agencies  Devolving the power of federal agencies regulatory powers over wildfire regulation requires collaboration between state and local agencies (Scheberle, pp. 382). The arguments against wildfire regulation by federal agencies are:  ●   State and local governments are positioned best to respond to the needs of their

constituents; and ●   Distorted federal policy priorities limit a state’s ability to shift priorities to the local level.

 Needs of Constituents  Federal agencies are not as informed to provide adequate environmental protection as state and local agencies which makes optimal regulatory judgments at the local scale difficult (Scheberle, pp. 378). The more efficient cleanup of hazardous waste sites by state and local agencies provides empirical evidence for this argument (Scheberle, pp. 376). For wildfire protection, state and local agencies respond best to the needs of their constituents by providing direct assistance quickly and efficiently. In Washington and Montana, rapid initial attack response keeps 95% of all wildfires under 10 acres. Compared to federal agencies who initially respond to wildfires on federal lands, state and local agencies protect all wildlands, including federally owned lands. In protecting all wildlands, state and local agencies provide fire protection to their constituents that is unmatched by federal agencies.  Distorted Policy Priorities  Federal policies and regulations make it difficult for state and local agencies to shift priorities to meet local needs (Scheberle, pp. 378-379). Empirical evidence of contaminated public water in homes from the 1970s supports this claim and examines the inadequate funding for environmental problems. While federal agencies have regulations for wildfires, these regulations are often unclear and are not consistently applied. This is important in protection of the area between forested land and human development, called the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Wildfires that originate on federal lands that threaten the WUI on local and state properties cause friction between these agencies regarding who is responsible for managing the fire. However, since this argument reinforces the strength of federal agencies in resolving transboundary migration challenges, it is not strong enough to enact wildfire regulations at the state and local level.