Practical policy options to address fire risk

As wildfires rage across Los Angeles, blanketing neighborhoods in smoke and threatening homes and lives, the urgency of dealing with fire hazards has never been clearer. Wildfires are an escalating crisis in the United States, especially in the West, where a century of fire suppression has led to more frequent and severe fires. Policymakers now face the urgent challenge of mitigating fire hazards while maintaining ecological integrity.

A 2024 article by environmental lawyer Sara Clark and co-authors offers a number of policy recommendations that can inform how we approach fire management. These ideas, based on science and practical experience, emphasize the need to rethink fire not as a threat, but as a vital ecological process. Here are some key recommendations:

Recognize fire as a fundamental process

A first step in addressing fire risk is changing the way fire is viewed under federal law. Current statutes such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) treat fire as a human activity, subject to regulation. This perspective fails to acknowledge fire as a “fundamental process”—a fundamental driver of ecosystem health. Reframing fire as a natural, basic condition would allow policymakers to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to its beneficial use, such as prescribed burns and other fire restoration practices.

Facilitating fire restoration practices

Fire restoration—the deliberate reintroduction of fire into ecosystems—is a critical tool for reducing fire severity and restoring ecological balance. Prescribed burns and managed fires can mimic natural fire cycles, reducing the accumulation of flammable materials and promoting biodiversity.

Many species benefit directly from these practices. For example, some pine species, such as longleaf pine, rely on periodic fire to regenerate, while animals such as the endangered red-headed woodpecker depend on the open forest structure created by these burns. Prescribed fire also encourages the growth of native grasses and wildflowers, which support pollinators and other wildlife.

However, regulatory hurdles under NEPA, ESA, and the CAA often delay or discourage these efforts. Improving environmental reviews and clearly exempting fire restoration projects from unnecessary bureaucratic processes would go a long way in increasing these practices.

Empowerment of indigenous knowledge

Indigenous knowledge has a vital role to play in modern fire management. For centuries, indigenous communities have used cultural burning—the intentional application of fire to achieve specific ecological and cultural outcomes—to maintain healthy landscapes. While indigenous knowledge is not science in the strict sense, it offers practical, time-tested strategies that complement scientific approaches.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s recent efforts to integrate indigenous knowledge into policy have sometimes confused it with science, undermining its unique value. Instead, policymakers should recognize indigenous knowledge as a separate but still important resource. For example, giving tribes more autonomy to conduct cultural burning without federal oversight would honor indigenous sovereignty while leveraging their expertise to effectively manage fire-prone landscapes.

Reforming environmental statutes

Federal laws such as NEPA and ESA often hinder proactive fire management. NEPA reviews, for example, can delay prescribed burning projects for years, while ESA consultation requirements hinder efforts to restore habitats that depend on periodic fires. These statutes may be updated to reflect the ecological importance of fire. For example:

• NEPA: Agencies may treat fire restoration as a natural process exempt from environmental review requirements.
• ESA: Projects that aim to reintroduce fire into fire-dependent ecosystems can avoid triggering lengthy consultation processes, as they may ultimately benefit the species these laws are designed to protect.

Clean Air Act Review

CAA’s focus on air quality standards creates a barrier to prescribed burns, as these controlled fires release particulate matter that can exceed regulatory thresholds. However, severe fires emit much larger amounts of pollutants. Recognizing emissions from prescribed burning as part of the natural baseline, rather than treating them as violations, would encourage their use and could ultimately lead to better air quality outcomes in the long term.

Public education and outreach

Finally, public understanding of the role of fire in ecosystems needs to be improved. Many people see fire only as a destructive force, without appreciating its ecological benefits. Public education campaigns can highlight how prescribed burning and cultural burning practices reduce fire hazards, protect communities and promote biodiversity.

CONCLUSION

As the wildfire crisis grows, policymakers must adopt a more modern approach to fire management. The recommendations outlined here provide a roadmap for reforming environmental laws and increasing beneficial fire practices. By treating fire as a natural ally rather than an enemy, we can restore balance to our landscapes and reduce the devastating impacts of fires. These solutions hold the promise of safer forests for both people and ecosystems.