Increasing Pace and Scale of Prescribed Fire via Catastrophe Funds for Liability Relief

• Published in: Fire (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2021-12, Vol.4 (4), p.77
• Main Authors: Varner, J. Morgan, Hiers, J. Kevin, Wheeler, Slaton B., McGuire, John, Quinn-Davidson, Lenya, Palmer, William E., Fowler, Laurie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Best management practices; Best practice; Biodiversity; Burning; Certification; disaster funds; Disasters; Environmental protection; escaped fire; Fire damage; Forest & brush fires; Forest conservation; Insurance companies; Insurance policies; Landowners; Liability; Litigation; natural hazards; Negligence; prescribed burn; Prescribed fire; Public good; Risk management; smoke; Vaccines; Wildfires; Wildland-urban interface; Wildlife conservation
• ISSN: 2571-6255; 2571-6255
• DOI: 10.3390/fire4040077

Increased prescribed burning is needed to provide a diversity of public benefits, including wildfire hazard reduction, improved forest resilience, and biodiversity conservation. Though rare, escaped burns or significant smoke impacts may result in harm to individuals and property. Liability for potential damages reduces the willingness of fire managers to expand the practice, particularly where the wildland–urban interface creates the greatest risk. Across the United States of America, efforts have been made to reduce prescribed fire-related risks through statutory reform, training and certification requirements, and private insurance. An increasing number of states have adopted the liability standard of gross negligence to protect prescribed fire practitioners. When liability relief is tied to best practices or burn manager certification, risk to the public from potential prescribed fire impacts is reduced. Under this model, however, those harmed by prescribed fire may have little legal recourse for compensation from losses. Here, we explore the pairing of a mechanism to compensate losses while limiting liability for practitioners who use best management practices. Specifically, we assess the suitability of using a catastrophe fund in conjunction with adoption of gross negligence standards, modeled after other natural hazards examples. This model could ensure public support and sustain and expand prescribed fire in many fire-prone landscapes.