By Don Thompson and Jeff Barnard for The Associated Press
via FireRescue1.com

The wildfire season in California has been tame so far, but that isn’t stopping lawmakers from trying to make sure the cash-strapped state has enough money to fight future fires.

They already have a solution: charge an annual firefighting fee to people who live in or near forests.

Neighboring states have been using similar fees for years. As more people move closer to forests and wildfires become more costly, a fee may prove more attractive to legislators when the alternative is to cut programs elsewhere in the budget.

Critics of the California fee call it unfair, saying rural residents already pay taxes to the state and should expect basic services in times of emergency. Supporters disagree, saying that people who live in fire-prone areas should pay for their own protection.

“This bill recognizes that a portion of the costs borne by the state for wildland fire prevention and protection services should be funded by the landowners in these areas,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in his signing statement.

The West has seen an explosion in the amount of acreage burned by wildfires during the past decade. At the same time, costs have increased to fight fires in the growing communities nestled in what once were remote areas.

Nationwide, the equivalent of California’s population — nearly 38 million people — has moved into areas where forests border cities and suburbs over the last 20 years, said Mark Rey, who had oversight of the U.S. Forest Service during the George W. Bush administration. Rey said that vastly complicates the job of fighting wildfires.

The firefighting fees have been helpful in Oregon, Rey said. “I don’t think Oregon otherwise would have the quality of firefighting response it has today without those,” he said.

Read the full article here.