The Antiplanner | Randal O'Toole | New Fire Plan: Burn More MoneyDo I have this right? In order to prevent the occasional $1B in destruction Washington is spending ~$3B annually.
In the late 1990s, the Forest Service spent about $300 million a year on fire and the Department of the Interior spent another $100 million a year. Then came the 2000 Cerro Grande fire, which burned a billion dollars worth of homes in Los Alamos, NM. After that, Congress opened up the checkbook and told the agencies to spend whatever it takes to keep such a fire from happening again.
The agencies have taken full advantage of this. In 2010, the Forest Service budget for fire was $2.1 billion and USDI’s was more than $850 million. That’s just the budget; the agencies had another $500 million or so to draw upon if they ran over their budgets; if they didn’t go over their budgets, they got to keep the surplus for future years.
That can't be, right. Right? Can it? I hope it isn't. This obviously fails the smell test, but such tests are no longer reliable since the federal budget always smells like horseshit, even when accurately reported.
It could be that Congress based their decision on something more than the raw cost. Like, oh, I dunno, the thousands of lives turned upside down by the fires. Though I agree, that doesn't sound very much like the Congress we know, does it...
ReplyDeleteI thought about that. I figured this is more like subsidizing flood insurance on the Mississippi plane or Hurricane insurance on the Gulf Coast and ignoring the actuarial risk assessment.
ReplyDeleteBut let's figure I'm wrong about that. Say the last round of fires did ten dollars in psychological damage for every dollar of property damage. That's a generous ratio, right?* Then they're still spending 27% of the worst-case scenario cost every year. That can't be a good way to do things.