By Greg Lemon, 9-03-07
Montana will owe more than $39 million after fall rains and snow have cooled this fire season. And already, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation is out of money.
Earlier this week, Gov. Brian Schweitzer called state legislators to come back to Helena Sept. 5 for the second special session of the year, this time to put money towards fighting fire and beef up the governor’s emergency relief fund.
Some have questioned the timing of the special session, since fires are still burning around the state, but Bob Harrington, DNRC State Forester, says it’s past time.
“We’re out of money and we’re going to have to shut down the DNRC to keep going,” Harrington said. “We’re out of money to pay the bills.”
So far this year, more than 500,000 acres have burned in Montana.
Though the 2007 regular legislative session and the subsequent special session were contentious, this special session should be simple, Schweitzer said.
“It’s just a process of moving it from the savings to the checking account,” Schweitzer said.
He’s figuring lawmakers can get it done in one day.
But to get it done in one day, everything will have to go just right, said. Senator Jim Shockley, R-Victor.
“A computer glitch and we’re going to be there two days,” Shockley said.
State fire fighting has been funded the same way for years. The DNRC gets money from the legislature for regular crews, equipment, and training, but it doesn’t get money for actually fighting fire. Up until 2000, this process worked fine, he said.
However, 2000 was a particularly expensive year as was 2003 and 2006, and the funding mechanism didn’t work. The governor’s emergency fund was $15 million and all of it got swallowed up in fire costs, and still the state was short. So the DNRC would have to ask for money in the legislative session to cover bills.
In the 2007 session, the DNRC proposed legislation that would change the way their fire costs were funded, but it didn’t pass. Shockley said that was a mistake.
“Next regular session we’re going to have to have an appropriations that’s adequate for funding fires,” he said.
For now, the special session will just appropriate money for this year’s costs, Shockley said.
Because, he says, lawmakers could see a special session looming, he doesn’t understand why the rush to hold it before fire season is over.
“We should wait until the fire season’s done so we know what the bill is,” Shockley said. “It would make more sense to do it when we knew what we were doing.”
Shockley was also surprised Schweitzer gave legislators only 10 days notice. For citizen legislators who have jobs and responsibilities, it’s tough to just drop everything and go to Helena, particularly without much notice.
“Ten days is just not enough time and if there was a reason for only 10 days then that would be fine,” he said.
In the special session, Schweitzer is asking for $55 million to cover this year’s costs and to put more money back into his emergency relief fund.
Like Harrington, Schweitzer feels it’s important to have the special session now. He knows the state doesn’t have enough money allocated to cover fire suppression costs and with $184 million left in the state’s coffers, he doesn’t want to be in a position to owe money for fire fighting.
“Montana has been doing business like a business – we pay our bills,” Schweitzer said.
If he waited to call a session, the agencies and businesses who have helped Montana fight fires this summer would be waiting for their checks, that’s not how he wants to run things, he said.
[End of article]So, the fire bill for this year at DNRC is $54 million. How many buildings and structures did that save? Let's say that 1000 were saved, and that's probably on the high side. How much would the private property owners each have to pay to cover the $54 million costs. That's a check for $54,000 that each of them owes the State of Montana, right?
Alternatively, we could start thinking about getting the buildings and structures out of the forests, so that the rest of us can stop paying the cost. Or, we could let them burn.
Sure. What is Seeley Lake worth? Or some people's family cabins?
Comment By Cathie, 9-03-07Maybe the state's own subdivision and environmental rules should be changed so that they quit promoting the development TZ seems to disdain.
This last legislative session attempted to increase the minimum lot size for wells - from 1 acre to 320 acres. Currently, you can subdivide down to 1 acre lots and still avoid having to do an analysis of the water table, etc. It was struck down in the name of development and property rights.
State subdivision laws can be avoided when creating lots no smaller than 160 acres.
Then there are the family exemptions, which are used to abusive levels. There is no minimum amount of time that those lots have to be kept, and no minimal subdivision regulations that have to be met. All counties on the western part of the states are seeing serious abuses of that disaster of legislation.
You can't have it both ways - you can't 'protect' 'property' rights and 'development' rights, and then cry foul when homes get in the pathway of natural disasters - especially when the laws actually promote that sort of activity.
Folks, check out SB51 enacted last session. It encourages local governments to utilize their growth policy to: 1) indentify their wildland urban interface (WUI) and 2) zone accordingly to require defensible space, ingress, egress, and water supply. And, of course, the insurance industry has a role. It could increase premiums on home insurance for those that own or build in areas that are identified in the WUI or that don't maintain defensible space, ingress, egress, and a water supply. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden irresponsible property ownership.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/fire_costs_estimates_surpass_last_years_special_session/C8/L8/