Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney says federal 'wildfire-use' policy shifts suppression and damage costs to Montana landowners and state
Summary
An attorney and former hotshot told a joint committee that use of wildfire for resource benefit under the federal cohesive strategy has led to large private losses and higher state costs, citing the Alice Creek fire and urging tougher cost‑sharing negotiations and statutory direction.
Quentin Rhodes, an attorney and former hotshot and smokejumper, told a joint Senate-House natural resources committee that federal adoption of a ‘wildfire-use’ approach to reduce hazardous fuels has shifted substantial suppression and property-damage costs onto Montana landowners and the state. He urged the legislature to give clear direction to negotiators and to insist on stronger cost-sharing protections for Montana.
Rhodes summarized the 2014 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy and said the Forest Service now often leaves small lightning fires to burn for resource benefit, counting resulting burned federal acreage as hazardous-fuel reduction. “They have a dashboard, where they keep track of it. And I just looked at it this morning. So far this year, they've used wildland fire to reduce hazardous fuels on 83,000 acres of national forest lands,” Rhodes said, adding that mechanical treatments accounted for about 86,000 acres in the same period.
Why this matters: Rhodes said wildfire-use decisions do not respect private-property boundaries and that the costs borne by neighbors — lost timber, infrastructure damage, erosion, and higher suppression bills — are substantial. He used the Alice Creek fire (2017) as an example: a 59-acre blaze that was 90% contained but left unmanned and ultimately burned roughly 36,000 acres, with about half on private land, and suppression costs in the roughly $20 million range; Montana shared about 37% of those suppression costs under existing agreements, Rhodes said.
Rhodes described legal limits on recovery against the federal government and the practical barriers for private landowners: “The government of the United States does not compensate them for that,” he said, noting that litigation against the U.S. is difficult and expensive. He urged the legislature to push for tougher cost-sharing terms in federal-state agreements and to provide statutory direction that protects state taxpayers and private landowners.
Rhodes also discussed broader economic impacts: class-action settlements tied to utility-caused fires (cited in the Q&A) have produced multi‑billion-dollar liabilities and higher utility rates, and utilities are passing mitigation and insurance costs to ratepayers. He recommended legislative clarity on policy trade-offs, better documentation and after-action records for federal fire decisions, and use of state negotiating leverage during cost‑sharing talks.
Ending: Rhodes provided written testimony to the committee and told members that durable statutory direction and firmer negotiation positions are the most practical levers the legislature now holds to protect state taxpayers and private landowners from costs associated with federal wildfire-use policies.
