PORTLAND — Despite the devastation wrought by Oregon’s Labor Day fires, Gov. Kate Brown has scaled back her ambitions when it comes to addressing the state’s wildfire risks — in the near term at least.
A legislative concept being circulated by the governor’s office for a potential special session would spend nearly $50 million over the next two-year budget cycle to develop a comprehensive wildfire risk map, bolster firefighting capacity and target tree thinning and fuel reduction projects in forests identified as high risk.
But the legislation backs away from some of the elements included in a more comprehensive bill introduced last year that sought new building codes for local governments requiring new construction to be more fire-resistant — a move many West Coast states have pursued and that many experts believe is the most effective way to reduce those risks. Brown’s proposal for a special session also backs away from forcing utilities to adopt wildfire risk reduction standards or directing insurance companies to build wildfire risk into their underwriting standards.
Each of those elements was included in legislation introduced in early 2020, though the bill was watered down by lawmakers and lobbyists, and ultimately died when Republicans walked out of the session.
Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, who chaired the legislature’s committee on Wildfire Reduction and Recovery, called the governor’s concept “Senate Bill 1536-light,” referring to the more comprehensive bill that died earlier this year. He said many of the complicated and controversial elements had been stripped out for a bill that could pass during a special session, though he’s still interested in tweaking the concept if a session occurs.
“If there is going to be a bill it’s going to be simpler and not take on the big fights,” he said. “If it happens, we’ll be in there for a day, and (a more comprehensive bill) just doesn’t work.”
The legislative concept sticks with the same three-prong approach presented to lawmakers in Senate Bill 1536, which was based on November 2019 recommendations from the Governor’s Council on Wildfire Response. It would spend nearly $50 million from the state general fund on community preparedness, bolstering firefighting capacity, and mitigation through investments in thinning and cleaning debris from forest floors.
The bill would direct $8 million to $10 million to several measures promoting “fire-adapted communities.” It calls on the Oregon Department of Forestry to develop a comprehensive map of wildfire risk by February. It also directs the State Fire Marshall to establish minimum defensible space requirements around homes and communities in wildfire prone areas, with those standards to be administered and enforced by local governments. And it directs the Oregon Health Authority to establish a program to increase the availability of smoke filtration systems for vulnerable populations in areas susceptible to wildfire.
Building codes
While the concept does not include any new building code requirements to make homes more fire resistant, it does call for the creation of a workgroup to identify building code gaps and needed updates in areas of high fire risk, with recommendations due by the end of the 2021 legislative session.
The Oregon Homes Builders Association, the Oregon Association of Realtors, the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Property Owners Association opposed land-use and defensible space prescriptions in Senate Bill 1536 last year.
Mark Long, chief executive of the builders association, said Tuesday that his group is supportive of code changes to make homes more fire resistant, but only if the state develops a searchable map that categorizes wildfire risks for specific geographic areas and the specific codes that apply based on those localized risks.
An article last month in the Street Roots newspaper suggested that Long’s association had reached a secret deal with the governor’s office to head off such code changes. It included taped conversations of board members discussing that understanding. Both Long and the governor’s office told the Oregonian/OregonLive that such a deal never existed.
“Conversations are still ongoing with legislators and stakeholders about how we will be able to secure the funding for the governor’s wildfire preparedness priorities,” Charles Boyle, a spokesman for the governor’s office told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Tuesday. “It is our hope that safe zone creation for homes will be a part of the final package. We also expect to again make recommendations for building codes in 2021 as we did in 2020, though it remains unclear if legislators will support it.”
The legislative concept envisions another $25 million for the Department of Forestry and the Oregon State Fire Marshall’s office to bolster firefighting, including aircraft and additional staff. Similar investments were contemplated last year, though they too generated debate from lawmakers concerned about investing new money in the financially troubled Department of Forestry. Environmental groups also complained that lawmakers were doubling down on a strategy — fire suppression – that helped create the risky conditions in forests today.
Finally, the governor would direct $12 million to the forestry department to fund up to 15 thinning and fuel reduction projects, which involve removing small diameter trees and collecting and burning debris that can fuel fires. The department would be directed to prioritize areas that have high wildfire risks, where human life and property is at risk, and where fuel reduction projects have already been approved under the National Environmental Protection Act.
Thinning may be the most controversial aspect of the bill. The governor’s wildfire council recommended such thinning and fuel reduction projects on some 5.6 million acres of forestland over 20 years. The cost, estimated at $4 billion over two decades, is not only far beyond the state’s means, but the prospect horrifies conservation groups leery of seeing heavy logging resume on federal forests in order to make such projects commercially viable.
Timber companies, meanwhile, maintain that Oregon’s fire risk is concentrated on those federal lands where harvest has been seriously curtailed for decades, and that they require more intensive management to reduce risks.
The concept halves the money directed to such projects from last year’s bill.
