This year, Alaska saw a historic wildfire season. The unusually warm and dry summer months brought hundreds upon hundreds of fires. They reached 1 million acres at the earliest date. More than 3,000,000 acres had been burned by the end of the season.

With this growing acreage comes a rising cost in financial terms. To determine the cost of this toll, a new study by the PEW Charitable trusts looked at six states governments. The state often underfunds wildfire costs upfront, and then pays them off later, as was the case in Alaska.

Peter Muller, study author, explains that this is possible due to Alaska’s unique after-the fact budgeting option called “ratification.”

Peter MullerThis interesting process was unique to Alaska. Alaska’s emergency agencies and forestry agencies can spend more than the wildfire funds they have been allocated. The legislature then approves the request. Sometimes, it takes a year to get the money spent.

Michael Fanelli:Why is it important that a heavy reliance on post-fire financing mechanisms such as that of the emergency or supplemental appropriations may obscure the true cost of fires?

Peter Muller:It’s important to understand how much suppression is costing you before you decide how much mitigation you want to invest. You might decide not to invest in mitigation if you have a low budget for suppression. The better you understand the true cost of suppression, the more informed your decisions regarding investing in the long-term and investing in preventive measures.

Michael Fanelli – From a budget perspective, would it not make more sense to invest in preventing fires rather than fighting them?

Peter MullerThese fires get more expensive year after year. It is possible to cut that cost by spending money now on mitigation measures. This will help reduce the intensity of future fires as well as slow down the growth of the expenditure.

Michael Fanelli.Is it possible to determine if mitigation and prevention measures are effective? How do you figure how many fires could have occurred if they hadn’t?

Peter Muller, This is a great question. It all depends on what type of mitigation you are trying to achieve. There aren’t many studies that can give an exact dollar figure on each mitigation effort. One thing I can tell you is that Alaska has a lot of attention paid to firebreaks. There have been some examples, I believe, of communities being protected by firebreaks that were set up in advance. You can see that the fire did not burn through the break, protecting many homes.

You’re trying to make sure that the next fire is small and manageable. It will be difficult to put a dollar value on the number of fires that did not occur. No one has done a good job at putting a dollar figure on the number of catastrophic fires that didn’t happen. However, experts that we spoke with agreed that mitigation efforts would reduce long-term wildfire costs and were an important part of the process.

Michael Fanelli : According to the report, Alaska has set aside $15 million for fuel reduction for the first time since around 15 years. Talking to experts gave me the impression that Alaskans might be more focused on mitigation in the future.

Peter Muller – Experts spoke out about a lot more interest in mitigation and how it was a priority that has risen in recent years. There is a lot of interest to build more firebreaks in order to protect the communities. The capital budget is a one-time process that appropriated the money. There is no evidence to suggest that the current funding is ongoing, but they expressed an interest.