Bush Signs Anti-Forest "Healthy Forests" Act

by J.R. Pegg

"We do not want our intentions bogged down by regulations," Bush said at today's signing ceremony at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We want to get moving. When we see a problem, this government needs to be able to move."

The enactment of the bill is a bitter defeat for environmentalists, who lobbied long and hard against a plan they believe is a giveaway to the timber industry and does little to protect communities most at risk from wildfire.

"The president's signature is an invitation for timber companies and the Forest Service to play fast and loose with our national forests," said Amy Mall, a forest specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "There is a real danger that the President's pen might as well be a chainsaw."

The President said the bill will help end decades of poor forest management that created conditions for devastating wildfires like the recent southern California blazes.

"We are seeing the tragic consequences brought by years of unwise forest policy," said Bush, who was joined by California fire fighters at the ceremony. "This law will not prevent every fire, but it is an important step forward, a vital step to make sure we do our duty to protect our nation's forests."

The bill expedites forest thinning projects on some 20 million acres of federal land and includes $760 million for forest thinning projects, with half earmarked for the communities considered most at risk.

The legislation runs in tandem with several administrative rules proposed by the Bush administration to streamline the removal of trees and underbrush from public lands.

There is little doubt the devastating wildfires that burned in southern California in October pushed Congress to act on the forest thinning bill.

Congress approved the legislation last month -- the House by a vote of 286 to 140 and the Senate by voice vote.

Bush said the plan represents "sound science" and reflects the government's "responsibility to be good stewards of the land."

His administration had ushered in a "clear and decisive change in direction" of forest management and pledged to use the new law "to work harder to do what we can do to prevent wildfire."

The scope of the problem is daunting -- some 190 million acres of public land are believed to need treatment for drought, insect infestation and potential fire. According to agency figures, the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department treated some two million acres in 2002.

Last year some seven million acres went up in flames -- more than twice the annual 10 year average -- and the federal government spent more than $1.6 billion to fight fires across 15 states.

This year, some 3.5 million acres have burned and more than $1 billion has been spent.

The problem is one the federal government has a large responsibility for -- wildfires were aggressively suppressed throughout the past century, allowing mass accumulation of undergrowth that is a key fuel for wildfires.

This was compounded by areas that have been clear cut and replaced with closely spaced and highly flammable timber.

But only 20 percent of the acres burned in the last 12 years were in national forests, leaving some to believe that the administration's plan has got it all wrong. Some 85 percent of the land near communities most considered at risk is in private hands, but the Healthy Forests bill does not address this part of the wildfire equation. The bill funds projects on federal lands -- but does not earmark funds for nonfederal lands.

The vagueness of the bill and the broad authority it grants federal agencies will encourage logging of valuable timber, not the underbrush most in need of clearing, according to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

The Bush administration exploited the public's justified fear of fires to pass "logging legislation," Pope said, that repays corporate campaigners at the expense of local communities.

And environmentalists challenge the argument that litigation and environmental review have delayed forest thinning projects, and point to several federal reports that support this view. Some argue the Bush administration's forest management policies under the law are more likely to generate -- rather than reduce -- litigation.

"We will be watching closely to see what kinds of projects the administration labels as fire risk reduction," said NRDC's Mall. "Commercial logging may fatten the wallets of timber barons, but homes and communities will continue to burn."