In recent years, massive wildfires in the western United States have captured national attention. In California, all but one of the 20 largest wildfires in the state’s history have occurred after the year 2000, with this year’s Park Fire ranking as the fourth largest in the state’s history. These wildfires come with large economic costs, with estimated losses reaching $117.4 billion annually between the years 2017 and 2021 and $5 billion in annual state fiscal loss.
The answer to what has prompted this recent, massive increase in wildfires across the western U.S. is complicated. Certainly, climate change is playing a prominent role. Evidenced across the globe, warmer temperatures in regions such as the western U.S. with a seasonal dry period simply cause more evaporation, creating a dryer landscape for fires to feed on and spread. But in addition to warmer temperatures, another factor at play is that forests may simply be too dense because they are filled with dry vegetation that can easily act as tinder.
In 1850, the newly founded state of California passed the “Act for the Government and Protection of Indians,” part of which outlawed intentional burning, which many Native American tribes in California had practiced for generations prior to European arrival to help forests to remain less overgrown. In a misinformed effort to protect California’s forests from wildfires, the act increased the forest density in California’s Klamath Mountains as well as the Sierra Nevada from the relatively low density of roughly a century ago.
Although the annual rate of acreage burned in the state actually saw a decrease after the 19th century, it began to rise after the 1980s, likely because of increased forest density. For example, the sequoia forests of California’s western Sierra Nevada mountains — which were decimated by fires in 2020 and 2021 — experienced a drought lasting from 2012–16 that dried out the underbrush surrounding the giant trees. Such droughts created the perfect conditions for fires to burn and spread. The dried-out underbrush acted as a “ladder fuel” during fires, in which the underbrush could act as a jumping off point to reach the higher tree canopy.
The state must engage more deeply in fuel reduction, which are measures that aim to minimize the chances that vegetation will turn into fuel for an unwanted fire. If the state were to properly fund and operate fuel reduction, how much would it need to do in order to return its forests to a more healthy relationship with fire? A recent study from the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based environmental research institute, states that the ideal rate of fuel reduction would be 3.9 million acres per year in order to minimize economic losses resulting from wildfires. The tasks that most need funding include thinning of underbrush, chopping down smaller trees which could be used for lumber and controlled burns.
However, the state isn’t doing enough to make fuel reduction a feasible solution for wildfires. One estimate from 2022 reveals that 200,000 acres have been treated, which is troublingly low given the Governor’s Office’s recently-stated goal of 1 million acres to be treated per year starting in 2025. In part, it makes sense that achieving this goal is difficult because fuel treatment is costly, requiring an estimated $2,000 to $4,000 to treat one acre, meaning that the state would have to allocate between $2 billion and $4 billion every year to actually achieve this goal. And when it comes to federal lands, the US Department of Agriculture — which is in charge of the Forest Service — historically has not asked for enough funding to increase treatment.
Due to this lack of public funding, the private sector may have to play a role in increasing fuel reduction in order to effectively treat sufficient acreage, starting with so-called “fire-tech startups.” One startup, Kodama Systems, is developing technology that would allow ‘skidders’ — large human-operated machines that help to plow and drag vegetation to burn piles — to operate semiautonomously. Another startup, BurnBot, is designing a large robot containing an upside down propane-fueled flame that torches the ground underneath it as it moves along. These are innovative and possibly more efficient solutions to fuel treatment but they are still in the very early stages of costly production. It is simply too early to tell if these products could become useful in California's forest preservation.
Whether the private sector provides the funding that the state or federal government cannot provide, or the state or federal government somehow increases its funding for fuel treatment, it seems likely that the benefits outweigh the costs. In the aforementioned report from the Breakthrough Institute, it is estimated that reaching the state’s official goal of 1 million acres would lead to a net economic benefit of $7.9 billion annually. In addition, reducing the risk of wildfires through fuel reduction would benefit the current home insurance crisis, in which many insurers have refused to cover homeowners located in fire-prone areas.
Wildfires are becoming more destructive worldwide, but one piece of good news is that if solutions are found in California, they could be applicable to other places that have recently suffered extreme wildfires.
