The City of Austin, TX Proposes to Spend $7,500,000 on "Wildfire Suppression" Efforts that Do Not Suppress Wildfire

Prescribed burns, forest thinning, fuel treatments and herbicide applications only make wildfires worse, but follow the money.

The city of Austin, TX is proposing that $7,500,000 be spent on contracts for “wildfire mitigation” described as follows:

Austin Water Item 4:

"Authorize four contracts for vegetation management for wildfire mitigation at natural areas managed by the Parks and Recreation Department with [certain government contractors], each for an initial term of two years with up to three one-year extension options, for total contract amounts not to exceed $7,500,000, divided equally among the contractors or the department may choose any contractor that has the available product. Funding: $200,000 is available in the Parks and Recreation Department’s Operating Budget. Funding for the remaining contract term is contingent upon available funding in future budgets." (emphasis added)

To the trained eye, to those of us trained to identify timber industry propaganda, this looks very much like burning taxpayer money and diverting valuable funds from what works to what doesn’t work.

Here is a link to the city council agenda.

January 30, 2025 Austin City Council Regular Meeting | AustinTexas.gov

I have highlighted three key terms in the first sentence:

"Authorize four contracts for vegetation management for wildfire mitigation at natural areas …”

How to spot timber industry propaganda

“Vegetation management,” “wildfire mitigation” and “natural areas” are all key terms and red flags.

“Vegetation management” refers to prescribed burning, forest thinning and fuel reduction.” The false idea here is that wildfires occur due to the natural areas having too much fuel, and that the solution is to remove the fuel. This runs counter to everything I have read and learned from Chad Hanson and George Wuerthner.

Here is the first article I would recommend by George Wuerthner Lessons from the LA Wildfires – The Wildlife News. Quoting the article: “An important lesson from the LA fires and others is that extreme weather conditions negate fuel reductions. State and federal agencies’ mantra about “reducing fuels” fails to recognize that high winds invalidate the effectiveness of logging, thinning, or prescribed burns. The wind blows embers over, around, and through such “fuel reductions.””

Similarly the term “wildfire mitigation” is a red flag. The idea is that wildfire can be mitigated in natural areas and that the way to do this is to reduce the fuel load, thin the forests and conduct prescribed burns.

Another George Wuerthner article that is very well researched. It’s The Wind Stupid – The Wildlife News: “Although numerous elements contribute to fire spread, including slope, topography, fuel type, and other factors, wind is the agent that creates unstoppable large high severity blazes…. Four major climate-weather controls support wildfires: drought, low humidity, high temperatures, and wind. But the most important factor is wind. According to at least one paper, wind accounts for over 90% of fire spread.”

If the wind is 90% of fire spread, and you can’t do anything about the wind, then you are spending 90% of taxpayer money on something that cannot work. Let's look at the other 10%--drought, low humidity and high temperatures. These are also outside of your control. So what are we spending money on? And why are we fooling people into thinking that we have some control over the spread of the largest and most intense wildfires in natural areas?

This is tricky politically, because the public wants government to do something, on the theory that "SOMEBODY has to do SOMETHING!!!" All the more reason for those of us who are informed and operating in the public interest to be vocal and organized, and to show the public and the government that some of what we are doing is actually counterproductive.

The term “natural areas” is a red flag because little can be done to suppress the largest and highest intensity wildfires. Much money is spent. Many personnel are deployed. But all of this is futile when it comes to protecting people and property.

Rehydrate the Landscape

What CAN be done is to make the landscape less flammable, by making every effort to capture rainwater. In that regard, here are two excellent discussions:

• Walter Jehne and Didi Pershouse: on the LA Fires and Rehydrating California

• Rehydrating California to prevent wildfires - by Alpha Lo

“Wildfire suppression” that does not suppress wildfires

City council members and legislators at the state and federal level are all surrounded by propaganda and by pressure to fund “wildfire suppression” efforts under false pretenses. The scales are tilted 100 to 1 in favor of expensive, futile efforts and against common sense. Terms like “fuel reduction” pervade the public discourse. It makes logical sense that if you reduce fuel loads you can suppress wildfires. The problem is that the science does not indicate this.

The science shows that fuel reduction and forest thinning actually make fires spread faster. That’s what we see in this Chad Hanson video, NCCCA "Smokescreen: Debunking Wildfire Myths" Event with Chad Hanson, PhD, where he told the story of the fire that affected Paradise, California. The fire traveled faster, not slower, through the most heavily logged areas.

Here’s part of the problem: Follow the money.

At every level of government, wherever you have government contractors involved, i.e., people receiving money from the government to perform specified tasks, then you have people who are incentivized to unduly influence government. So it’s not a level playing field. It’s not as if the public has the same amount of money. It’s not as if the public is as well organized as the people who are saying, “Pay me money, and I will do XYZ.” Whether XYZ is in the public interest is a whole other conversation that usually does not occur.

In the case of the Austin City Council, you have people saying, pay me $7,500,000, and I will reduce your exposure to wildfire, even though logic and science say that you are not, in fact, reducing the risk of wildfire or harm to people and property.

City, state and federal governments everywhere are burning money while making their landscapes more--not less--flammable.