A couple of bills are languishing in Congress that could have limited the effects of the wildfires that have devastated much of Southern California and saved countless homes and lives.
For more than a week, two giant C-130J aircraft, outfitted with state-of-the-art Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems, sat on the ground in California while the fires multiplied and began to burn out of control. In addition, there were two of these planes in Colorado, two in Wyoming and two in North Carolina that could have been called into service.
These planes carry between 2,750 and 3,000 gallons of water or fire retardant, which can cover an area 60 feet wide by a quarter-mile long. After discharging a load, they can be refilled in 15 to 20 minutes.
We, the federal taxpayers, purchased these systems in 1973, specifically to fight forest fires. So why were all those planes kept on the ground all this time? It’s due to a depression-era bill that benefits a few at the expense of the many.
The Economy Act of 1934 makes it impossible for federal firefighters to access these assets until all commercial contract planes are in use, even if those planes are not stationed close to the fire or are outdated or lack the necessary needed equipment.
Last weekend, Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., bemoaned the fact that his Simi Valley district was being ravaged by fire while the two aircraft assigned to Point Mugu were not being used because seven contract planes that were too small for these large fires were on the ground. This technicality cost many of his constituents everything they owned.
Last year, Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., was frustrated when the two air tankers stationed just 20-miles away from the Hayman fire, sat on the ground for seven days while it burned out of control.
These two lawmakers co-sponsored a bill that was inserted as an amendment into the House version of the 2004 Defense Authorization Act that would create a two-year pilot program to suspend the provision of the Economy Act that keeps these valuable planes out of service.
This measure is what you might call reasonable but “weak-kneed.” Even so, there is lots of opposition, and its fate is uncertain.
Why do we need a two-year pilot program?
It’s to make sure it will not hurt commercial contractors.
What about all those commercial businesses that were burned to the ground? Does anyone care about them?
Maybe its time we re-examine the whole business of using private contractors to fight our fires.
Make no mistake, these contractors are busy calling members of Congress and saying that the Hefley-Gallegly amendment is unfair. They claim it will lead federal firefighters to call on Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve assets as their first choice in fighting fires.
However, these private contractors don’t simply complain. They reward congressmen and senators who vote their way with big campaign contributions. Frankly, these contractors don’t care who gets burned and – as long as our lawmakers do not feel our heat – they won’t care either.
Only after 500,000 acres burned and over 1,500 homes were destroyed in California was the Senate shamed into taking up a watered-down version of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a bill that passed the House back in May. The bill has been urgently needed in order to expedite action to reduce dead and dying trees in our national forests, but has been held up due to pressure from radical environmental groups opposed to any logging.
We need to remember that our national forests are not the same as our national parks and wilderness areas. The national forests were originally set aside to insure that the nation had a steady supply of timber. Yes, timber! Trees are a crop, and unless these forests are thinned through logging, nature will do it through wildfires.
Small wildfires used to spring up and burn themselves out. This created natural firebreaks. Now, the forest service comes in to put out every little blaze.
Environmental groups have railed against clear-cutting. However, clear-cutting is the safest and most cost-effective way to do the job nature once did with wildfires. To be sure, a fresh clear-cut area is not pretty. However, a clear-cut field is just like any other field after a harvest. Compared to an area that has been ravaged by a forest fire, a clear-cut area is a beautiful sight!
Radical environmental groups now claim dominion over all trees in the national forests. In addition, they have badgered members of Congress to take in more acres than the nation reasonably can manage.
Not only has this decimated our logging industry and driven up the price of homes, it has created a hazard we can ill afford.
Helene and the ‘climate change’ experts
Larry Elder