(Bloomberg) — Wildfires blamed in part on climate change areconsuming timber in the U.S. West at such a furious pace that halfthe Forest Service's budget is now spent fighting them — up from21% in 2000.

Add in the firefighting of other agencies, as well as stategovernments, and the bill to taxpayers runs in the billions ofdollars each year. And it's growing fast, driven by an urbanizingWest as well as warmer and drier summers.

The cost has touched off a debate about whether the rush toquench blazes is obscuring the need to prevent fires by thinningdeadwood and controlling insects or limit their impact bydiscouraging home-building in danger-prone areas.

“We don't always necessarily need more money,” said KimRodrigues, a wildfire expert with the University of California'sagricultural and natural resources department in Davis. “But weneed more proactive efforts.”

President Barack Obama, citing a National Climate Assessment inMay that mentioned wildfires 200 times, is proposing a shift in theway firefighting is funded and put blazes on par with hurricanesand earthquakes. That would boost funding and end the practice oftaking money from mitigation and prevention to pay for disasterresponse.

Costs, Acres

Federal firefighting costs passed $1 billion for the first timein 2000 and have exceeded that mark every year but two. Together,the Forest Service and Interior Department have averaged $1.54billion in fire suppression in the past decade. States pay another$1 billion to $2 billion annually, according to HeadwatersEconomics, a Bozeman, Montana-based research group. Fires affectedabout 7.3 million acres a year in the most recent decade, up 66percent from the previous 10 years.

The costs are driven, in part, by more people building homes inareas with a high risk for blazes. About 16% of fire-prone privatelands in the West are now developed, according to Headwaters.

Insurers have incurred almost $5 billion in wildfire lossesduring the past 10 years, according to Verisk's Property ClaimServices. Only hurricanes, thunderstorms and winter storms causedmore losses, according to the Jersey City, New Jersey-based riskassesment consultant.

The presence of people, some encouraged to move to dangerousareas by local governments that want the tax revenue, pushesagencies to fight fires more aggressively — at higher cost — thanthey might otherwise, while urbanization makes wildland managementmore difficult, said Bill Stewart, co-director of the Center forForestry at the University of California-Berkeley.

California Burning

California, the leading wildfire state, has had more than 2,500blazes break out so far this year, according to its statefirefighting agency. In May, fires in San Diego County that charredmore than 31 square miles forced thousands of residents from theirhomes — and the peak of the season is only beginning. The state'sdryness may not break until at least November, according to itsWater Resources Department.

The National Interagency Fire Center, based in Boise Idaho, saysabove-normal wildfire potential will persist in California, Arizonaand New Mexico this month, with the Pacific Northwest moresusceptible later in the summer. A government report in May saidfederal firefighting will cost about $1.8 billion — $470 millionmore than budgeted and short of the costs for August and September,the final two months of the fiscal year.

“We've seen record wildfires,” Obama said last week in a townhall meeting in Minneapolis. “We're having to spend more money nowfighting fires than we ever have.”

Funds Shifted

As emergencies sap funds, less-immediate needs for long- termprevention have suffered. The Forest Service and InteriorDepartment have diverted $3.2 billion from research and otherprograms in the past 12 years to firefighting, with almost a thirdof the total shifted since 2012, according to the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service.

Obama is seeking to pay for firefighting in a way similar todisasters such as tornadoes and floods, touting his plan in a videoconference with western governors last month. Instead of raidingprograms, extra spending would come from the same reserve as otherdisasters through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The planwould boost fire management 28% to $4.25 billion in 2015.

Congress, too, has taken aim at the problem. The $39 billionHomeland Security budget approved by the Senate AppropriationsCommittee last month included a plan to let communities apply forhazard mitigation grants that would pay for activities such astree-thinning. As that happened, 14 senators including Democrat RonWyden of Oregon and Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho asked the Senateto vote on a plan similar to Obama's that would increasefirefighting money.

Immediate Action

“The cheapest fire to fight is one that never burns,” saidSenator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat.

Still, firefighting can be over-emphasized when taxpayers andvoters demand immediate action against imminent threats, givinglong-range planning short shrift, Stewart, with the University ofCalifornia, said.

A warmer, drier climate not only makes existing tinder moreflammable, it also helps create more fuel for flames, requiringbetter forest management, Stewart said. Pine beetles that haveeaten through trees, killing and drying them, are among theproblems the Forest Service hasn't been able to adequately respond,Stewart said.

“The more they put into fire suppression and not intoprevention, the more the fire problem could get worse,” he said.“You need to think more about sustainable management offorests.”

Private Logging

Timber companies, long criticized by environmentalists forover-cutting forests and putting profits before land management,also can contribute to a solution, said Paul Jannke, principal atForest Economic Advisors in Westford, Massachusetts, an industryrepresentative.

Companies could do more to clean up timber on land scorched byfires or thin forests on public lands, he said.

Logging in government-owned areas plunged 76% to less than 3million board feet from more than 11 million, from in 1988 to 1994,due largely to objections from environmentalists, said Jannke,whose company has worked with Weyerhaeuser Co., Potlatch Corp. andother forest owners.

“If fuel for fires is being accumulated, we can take away someof the fuel, and that makes the fires we do have less damaging,” hesaid. “We're not being tapped as a resource.”

Shielding non-firefighting funds is better than raiding them,making federal proposals a good first step, said JonathanOppenheimer, senior conservation associate for the IdahoConservation League. Still, prevention needs to become a biggerfocus, he said.

'Blank Check'

“Historically, firefighting has received a blank check, and youneed to get away from that approach,” said Oppenheimer, whoseBoise-based organization advocates on fish and wildlife issues.

“We need to do thinning and fuels reduction around homes. Weneed to manage wildfires to stay away from communities. We needbetter community planning, so homes don't move into wild land,” hesaid. “Otherwise, we'll just keep seeing pressure to send in thetankers.”

Ultimately, as a changing climate leads to more blazes,attitudes toward wildfires may need to change, Rodrigues said. Itmay be necessary to let more acres burn as part of long-term forestmanagement, and some fires may not require as forceful a responsefrom a U.S. government accustomed to rushing to help, she said.

“Ecologically, we're out of balance, and that's why some ofthese high-severity fires occur,” she said. “It's controversial,but sometimes it makes sense to let things burn.

''What we need is better dialogue and strategic thought aboutthese things, before the fires occur.''

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.