Reality Check: Oregon Needs A Wildfire Program, Just Not One Abused By Nimbys

It’s time to have an honest discussion about wildfire. Unless you’ve been out of the country for the last month, you couldn’t have missed the news that much of Oregon is currently on fire. At the time of this blog post, over 800,000 acres in eastern and southern Oregon is currently burning, and by the end of July, fire officials expect that number to jump to over 1,000,000 acres.  That’s larger than the entire state of Rhode Island.

It would be one thing if the total wildfire loss for the entire year was one million acres, but Oregon just entered its fire season. We still have all of August and September to go, and those are the two months when wildfires are at their peak. Things are going to get worse, and unfortunately, we are already stretched extremely thin of firefighting resources. 

Whether we like it or not, this new age of wildfire requires us to think differently about how we assess risk and prioritize resources. This is the basis for Oregon’s wildfire program and the new Wildfire Hazard Map.

This is why OPOA has been actively involved in this conversation since before SB 762 was even adopted. Our goal in this conversation has been to provide reasonable solutions to a massive and complicated issue. We want to support and protect private property rights, support our first responders and firefighters, and push-back on any overreach by the state or NIMBY groups.

As the program begins to finally roll-out, we believe there’s mostly good in our wildfire program, and a lot of potential for things to get even better. There’s also a few things we remain worried about. We want to be up front with all of you about both. 

So here are some of our Pros and Cons of the wildfire map and wildfire program as we currently see it:

Pro: Map highlights areas of greatest hazard and need for firefighting and mitigation resources.

We know many of you have concerns about the impact of the Wildfire Hazard Map on your property values and insurance rates. We understand that you might be worried about the Oregon State Fire Marshal’s (OSFM) new defensible space requirements or the Oregon Building Codes Division’s (BCD) new home hardening requirements.

We want you to know that we fully understand that no one likes new regulations on their property (especially not us), and we know many of you don’t like the maps or the new regulations. We understand why. 

But before you write off the hazard map or the new program completely, we ask you to look at the new map and compare it to where the wildfires are burning Oregon. You’ll notice a remarkable correlation between the areas mapped as high hazard and the location of the wildfires.

This is why those focused on actual firefighting generally support the idea of a map. If done correctly and accurately, this visual aid can really help Oregonians understand the areas with the highest hazard risk. It also shows the areas that need to most mitigation work during the off-season, and most importantly, it shows areas of our state that should be prioritized for state and federal resources. 

We’ll never have enough money to “fix” this issue, so Congress and the states need to prioritize funding to those areas that need it the most.

Our first responders, ODF, OSFM and the thousands of volunteer firefighters are working tirelessly to fight fires. The current devastation is beyond their control, and they should be praised for their efforts. They are putting their lives on the line to protect us, but they are working on shoe-string budgets, without enough support from the State or Congress.

With the exception of the 2021-23 biennium, Oregon legislators have failed our wildfire program and our first responders. In fact, the 2023 legislature cut significant portions of ODF and OSFM’s requested wildfire budgets. As a result, Oregon firefighters lack the resources to fight wildfires during their early stages, when the wildfire is the easiest to contain. Unfortunately, Congress isn’t any better. 

Without adequate funding, Oregon’s wildfires are going to continue to get worse, not better.  How many years are we going to sit back and watch our rural areas burn because it’s not a “Portland problem”? The statewide wildfire hazard map can be a vital tool in helping decision makers understand the severity of wildfire in our state, and should be used to direct and prioritize state and federal resources.

Regardless of the map, OPOA is going to work hard in the 2025 legislative session to help secure sufficient funding to our first responders, OSFM, and ODF so that they have sufficient assets to fight wildfires. We hope you’ll join us.

Con: Map ripe for NIMBY abuse.

If there’s anything we worry about as a result of the maps, it’s the ongoing efforts by NIMBY groups to use the maps to stop people from building new homes or businesses in high hazard areas. 

As we all well know, many of our NIMBY advocate groups want nothing more than to stop people from living in rural areas. Whether it’s expanding our UGBs, or building a house on farmland, these groups now use “the risk of wildfire” as the reason to stop development in rural areas.

These groups, and certain state agencies, have made no bones about their desire to use the state map as a land use tool to stop development in high hazard areas, and to even stop people from rebuilding their homes if they’re destroyed by fire. This type of reasoning will devastate eastern, central, and southern Oregon counties. It also threatens to completely undermine the wildfire program.

There is nothing more hypocritical than someone living in a home on 10-acres in the country while devoting all their free time and energy to stopping anyone else from doing the same thing.   These people demand their property rights while ignoring their neighbors’ rights. If there’s a group of property owners we won’t help, it’s folks like this.

Pro: Defensible space and home hardening offer reasonable protection for rural homes.

Most people would agree that stopping development in high-hazard areas is an untenable and unreasonable solution. Especially in a housing crisis. Especially in rural communities. This is simply NOT the only way to protect people from wildfire risk.  But that doesn’t mean that rural property owners shouldn’t have some responsibility in taking care of their property.

This is why we should support defensible space and home hardening requirements. These standards were designed with the understanding that the risk of wildfire is inevitable, especially in rural places, but the risk should not stop individuals from building homes on their properties.

OSFM’s new defensible space requirements are designed to protect you, your home, other buildings on your property, and your neighbors during a wildfire event. The home hardening requirements have the same purpose. Neither requirement changes what you can do on your property, or where you can do it.

We’ve talked with OSFM many times. The agency’s goal is to help property owners meet the defensible space standards through voluntary measures, technical assistance, and support, not write tickets. Not only do they not want to write tickets, but they also don’t have the staff to drive around rural Oregon from property to property.  We’ve worked with nearly every Oregon agency over the years – some good, some bad. OSFM is a good agency, and we plan on holding them to that reputation.

The home hardening requirements are also controlled by you, the property owner. They only apply if you decide to build a new house, rebuild, or substantially remodel your home. You don’t have to harden your existing home – you certainly can if you want to, and hardening could very well save your home in a wildfire, but the choice is yours.

The real game changer for defensible space and home hardening will be when insurance companies start giving discounts to property owners who maintain defensible space and have a hardened home.  The first insurance company that does this will have customers lining up to switch over. We are going to continue to encourage companies to do so.

While we understand that folks do not like the ideas of more regulations, there’s no reason to allow NIMBY’s to use wildfire as an excuse to stop people from living in rural areas. By hardening our homes, adopting defensible space standards, supporting active management of our forests, and adequate resources for our firefighters, Oregon could have a robust and successful program.

Unless the NIMBYs try to ruin it….

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.