When will feds reduce wildfire risks in forests?

California’s 13 largest wildfires have occurred since the Cedar fire burned 2,820 structures and killed 15 people in San Diego County in October 2003. With the Dixie and Caldor fires front of mind now, it’s maddening to hear lip service from lawmakers and bureaucrats, and see how little has been done to take basic steps to reduce wildfire risks.

Perhaps the most maddening failure of all is the federal government’s refusal to take responsibility for properly maintaining the 57% of California forest land that it owns.

A recent story by The San Diego Union-Tribune detailed how frustrated private forest owners were with the U.S. Forest Service and how it has done little to adopt practices that would minimize the risk of blazes starting on federal land and crossing into private holdings. As the story noted, between environmental laws and pressure from the logging industry, federal forest overseers have felt constrained in what they can do.

But at a fundamental level, the U.S. Forest Service simply never gives enough credence to a basic truth of forest health. A policy of emphasizing fire suppression without active efforts to clear forests of dead trees and other flammable growth makes the chances of huge conflagrations much more likely.

To his credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom has stepped up efforts to thin state forests. But he needs to reach out to the White House and point out the obvious: Until federal policy on federal land is smarter, California’s ability to reduce wildfires during the climate emergency is limited.