Another wildfire season is already underway, with fires burning around Klamath Falls. Drought conditions across 85% of Oregon have threatened a worse fire season than last year.
Lawmakers responded to 2020’s devastating wildfires, which burned over a million acres in Oregon, by introducing a slew of bills aimed at wildfire prevention, management and recovery.
Also last year, a growing body of scientific research came to light supporting the effectiveness of traditional Indigenous land management practices in preventing uncontrolled wildfires. Foremost among these practices is prescribed burns, a method of intentionally burning the land every few years, under controlled conditions, to prevent the buildup of fuel like deadfall and overgrowth and promote fire-adapted ecosystems, thus preventing uncontrolled outbreaks of wildfires like the ones we saw last year.
STREET ROOTS NEWS: Native land management could save us from wildfires, experts say
But despite the research supporting Native expertise, Oregon lawmakers have left Native people almost entirely out of the decision making and funding processes aimed at changing the pattern of uncontrolled summer and autumn fires — even as the state works to implement tribal knowledge.
Funding not going directly to tribes
Typical of this year’s wildfire bills is House Bill 3160, which would establish a fund for community protection against wildfires. The fund draws from a proposed surcharge on insurance policies. It sends the money to the state fire marshal, the Department of Forestry and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
None of that money is set aside for tribal efforts, such as the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde’s fire program, which has previously collaborated with Oregon Metro on prescribed burns.
Rep. Pam Marsh (D-Ashland), vice chair of the House Special Committee on Wildfire Recovery, said this bill is designed to distribute funding through existing state agencies, but some of it might reach tribes secondhand.
“Although tribes aren’t called out in the initial legislation, I am confident that they would be targeted in the funding process,” she said. “However,” she added, “we should think about that.”
But Danny Santos, interim director of the Legislative Commission on Indian Services, said the perception that non-tribal participants, such as the Forestry Department, will take up tribal interests has not historically worked in the best interests of tribes.
“Some state agencies, other governmental entities and legislators may still assume that tribal interests (for one and sometimes every tribe) are covered in their meetings, memos, policies and proposals,” Santos said. But consultation means “having meaningful dialogue in developing plans, not simply informing tribes of what actions (are) to be taken.”
Another bill, House Bill 2273, seeks to establish a forestry task force and doesn’t specify the inclusion of tribal representatives. Yet another proposal, House Bill 3282, would require the Forestry Department study and make recommendations about wildfire prevention, but makes no mention of consulting Indigenous scientists.
The absence of Native people from these bills contrasts starkly with the strong representation of business interests.
A few fire bills have overt economic tones. House Bill 3279 would offer grant money to private contractors with air curtain burners to help with fuel reduction — money that could go to tribal fire programs for the same purpose.
House Bill 2795 aims to give $5 million from the general fund to support “Good Neighbor Authority Agreement projects.” These are projects, according to Oregon law, “that increase timber harvest volume” and “maximize economic benefit to this state.”
One wildfire bill mentions Natives directly. House Bill 2722 seeks to create a committee to advise policymakers on land use and wildfires. The 22-person committee would include one Native person to represent the nine federally recognized tribes across Oregon. Also around the table would be developers, real estate agents, farmers, utility companies and landowners.
One Native person out of 22 slightly over-approximates Oregon’s Native population by percentage — 3% of Oregonians are Native — but doesn’t necessarily account for the unique expertise Native communities can bring to the table and their unique stake in caring for the land.
Santos said that expecting one person to represent the diverse governmental, economic and environmental positions of the nine tribes — which are not always in strict accordance with one another, or with settler conservation efforts — is like expecting a representative of Portland to speak for other parts of the state.
“The city of Portland cannot be seen as speaking for all Oregon cities. Malheur County cannot be seen as speaking for all Oregon counties,” Santos said. “At the same time, notifying a tribe and consulting with them clearly does not reflect all the interests, concerns and needs of Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes.”
Nationally recognized tribes
At a federal level, Santos noted, two Oregon tribes recently became the first to be nationally recognized for their forest management systems. The Coquille Indian Tribe was the first to apply for, and to be granted, the Indian Trust Asset Management Plan. This federal program gives Coquille the authority to manage their lands, which are held in trust by the Department of the Interior, without needing approval from the secretary of the Interior. Earlier this year, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians in Southwest Oregon became the second tribe to win land management sovereignty through the Indian Trust Asset Management Plan.
The program gives the Coquille and Cow Creek Umpqua tribes sovereignty to manage their forest lands as they see fit, but it doesn’t provide funding or engage them with statewide land use planning or wildfire prevention efforts.
Susan Ferris, public affairs person with the Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe, said Native people should be included in statewide discussions about land management and wildfire prevention.
“In the beginning,” she said, “all the forest lands in Oregon were managed, and managed well, by Oregon’s Indigenous peoples. … It would seem now that people are making a concerted effort to manage our forests better, that it would only be sensible and right to include Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribes.”
Using knowledge, but not leadership
While Native people are largely omitted from state wildfire legislation, Native knowledge is not. Controlled burns have arrived at the doorstep of Oregon law.
House Bill 2572 would allow neighboring property owners to collaborate on controlled burns. This would update the current state law, which calls any fire crossing property lines “uncontrolled.” And House Bill 2571 would commission a study of liability for prescribed fires, to see what’s worked in other states.
Marsh, the Democrat from Ashland, acknowledges these two bills are explicitly based on traditional Indigenous knowledge.
“When we talk about them, we always note that we are trying to reestablish traditions that were known and implemented by our tribes,” she said.
These two bills pave the way for more prescribed burns, but they don’t mention Natives, designate Native leadership or fund Native wildfire efforts.
Santos said there remains a lack of understanding of how much tribes have to contribute to statewide discussions.
“While challenges remain, there have been great advancements in having tribal voices around the table,” Santos said.
At a meeting April 13 for the Natural and Cultural Resources Task Force, part of Gov. Kate Brown’s disaster cabinet response to the wildfire relief and recovery efforts, Santos said, “Tribal representatives got information and made valuable inquiries related to tribal interests” and were “made aware of funding opportunities.” He said tribal consultations like this are happening more frequently across other cabinets and state agencies, as well.
Government-to-government relations between tribes and the state have improved, Santos said, but there’s still a long way to go.