Key strategies for effective wildfire funding
Wildfire is no longer a seasonal surprise across the Mountain West. It is a recurring fiscal challenge that threatens communities, public lands, infrastructure, air quality, and state budgets. As Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington confront increasingly costly fire seasons, policymakers should rethink not only how much they spend on wildfire, but how those dollars are structured.
The central challenge is that wildfire costs are unpredictable. A state may experience a relatively mild season one year and face extraordinary suppression expenses the next. Yet preparedness, forest management, equipment, and community resilience require steady investment long before smoke fills the skies.
A more resilient wildfire funding system should therefore have two distinct components: predictable baseline funding for preparedness and mitigation, paired with flexible reserves and emergency authorities for suppression and recovery.
States in our region offer useful examples of how to build such a system.
Montana has taken important steps through its Wildfire Suppression State Special Revenue Account. Established in 2008, the account can support suppression, preparedness, equipment, and mitigation. In 2023, House Bill 883 provided a $152 million one-time General Fund appropriation, increased the amount available for mitigation and preparedness, and established a balance target tied to General Fund revenues.
In 2024, Montana’s suppression costs were approximately $39.1 million, while the account was projected to hold roughly $145 million at the end of fiscal year 2025. That reserve provides stability, but the state should continue evaluating whether its funding structure encourages the most effective long-term investments.
Idaho has emphasized a combination of dedicated funding and partnerships. Its Fire Suppression-Deficiency Warrants Fund helps address unexpected suppression costs, while programs such as Shared Stewardship and the Good Neighbor Authority support work across ownership boundaries. That approach recognizes a basic reality of western wildfire: fires do not stop at property lines, and neither should prevention efforts.
Wyoming provides another model through its Emergency Fire Suppression Account, Fire Protection Revolving Account, legislative appropriations, federal grants, and emergency authorities. The state authorized approximately $176.9 million for wildfire suppression and recovery during the 2025–26 biennium. Wyoming’s approach illustrates the importance of maintaining access to emergency resources while using the regular budget process to provide oversight and accountability.
Washington has pursued a more comprehensive strategy. Its Wildfire Response, Forest Restoration, and Community Resilience Account commits $125 million per biennium for eight years, or $500 million total, to connect response, restoration, and community resilience. A public dashboard also helps track how funds are being used. That kind of transparency can improve public confidence and help policymakers determine which investments are producing results.
These approaches differ, but they point toward a common lesson: wildfire funding should not be treated as a single line item. Suppression is essential, but it is often the most expensive and least predictable part of the system. Preparedness and mitigation can reduce the severity of future fires, protect communities, and lower pressure on emergency budgets. Recovery funding is also necessary, because the costs of a fire continue after the flames are extinguished.
Still, mitigation spending should not become a blank check. A recent analysis from the Property and Environment Research Center found that fuel treatments can generate substantial benefits, including reduced federal firefighting costs and avoided smoke and property damages. But returns vary by project. Larger, strategically selected projects produced stronger estimated benefit-cost ratios than smaller projects. The implication is clear: states should prioritize targeted treatments where they are most likely to reduce risk, rather than measuring success simply by dollars spent or acres treated.
The same principle should apply to the way wildfire funds are budgeted and spent. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s analysis of “use it or lose it” federal spending raises concerns that agencies may accelerate spending at the end of the fiscal year simply to preserve future appropriations. Although not specific to wildfire funding, the analysis reinforces the need for wildfire dollars to be tied to measurable outcomes and long-term risk reduction rather than incentives to spend funds before they expire.
The Mountain West also needs to recognize the limits of state-only solutions. Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington all contain significant federal land, meaning state investments can be undermined when federal, state, tribal, and private landowners pursue disconnected strategies. Better coordination, shared data, and cross-boundary projects can stretch scarce dollars further.
A smarter funding system would establish a reliable preparedness and mitigation baseline, maintain reserves for severe suppression seasons, preserve legislative oversight, and require clear performance measures. Policymakers should ask not only how much money was spent, but whether communities were better protected, response costs were reduced, and forest conditions improved.
Wildfire will remain part of life in the Mountain West. The question is whether states will continue paying primarily after disaster strikes or invest more deliberately before the next fire begins.
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington are experimenting with different answers. Their experiences suggest that fiscal responsibility and wildfire resilience are not competing goals. With predictable funding, targeted mitigation, transparent reporting, and regional cooperation, they can reinforce one another.
