Federal agencies responsible for fighting wildfires have borrowed so much money from other forest programs that fire-prevention efforts have suffered, according to congressional auditors.
In the past five years, the Forest Service and Interior Department transferred more than $2.7 billion from other programs because they repeatedly underestimated how much money would be needed to pay for firefighting, the report by the General Accounting Office said.
Because of the frequent borrowing, officials were forced to delay projects to prune some forests of dead trees. Wildfire training courses were also postponed, along with the purchase of extra firefighting equipment.
The June 2 report by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, came as no surprise to lawmakers who have complained for years about insufficient wildfire funding.
Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho said the report confirms his suspicions that “we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
“Each year we are told that the administration’s budget request will meet firefighting costs,” said Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. “Yet each year the administration’s budget request proves inadequate to cover those needs, resulting in the chaos of having to transfer money from one account to another to make up for the shortfall.”
Create reserve account?
The report suggested the Forest Service and Interior Department improve the estimates of firefighting costs and said Congress should consider alternatives, such as creating a reserve account.
The agencies now rely on a 10-year average of firefighting costs as the basis for budget requests. That practice was criticized by the GAO, which said it resulted in estimates well below what was needed.
The cost of fighting wildfires has exceeded appropriated funds almost every year since 1990. In 2002 and 2003, the government spent more than $1 billion fighting fires.
The agencies, in written responses, agreed with the report, but the Interior Department defended use of the 10-year average, calling it “a reasonable and durable” method of budgeting.
The department did say it is working with the Forest Service to develop a new statistical forecasting system to better predict costs.
Example of redirected funds
The frequent borrowing often meant that forest projects were delayed, sometimes allowing fire risks to worsen, auditors said.
For example, the government had planned to remove 150 acres of trees infested with spruce beetles from Colorado’s White River National Forest last year. But $111,000 was transferred from that project to fight fires, and now the beetle infestation has grown to 230 acres.
The project would now cost an extra $24,000, and the increased number of dead trees, along with dry conditions, only raises the risk of wildfires.
The borrowing practices also strained relationships with states, nonprofit groups and communities, the report said. Congress reimbursed agencies about 80 percent of the money borrowed.
House subcommittees recently approved adding $2.6 billion for fighting wildfires in 2005, a near 10 percent increase over this year’s levels.