Burn permits on the chopping block

The county is considering a change to its fire restrictions, removing the option for individuals to request permits to burn during a ban period.

The provision is causing more issues than it’s solving, the county commissioners believe.

Fire Warden Charlie Harrison brought up the issue last week when he mentioned that county residents will often request permits during a fire ban period. No matter the person’s history, level of experience or circumstances, he said, he cannot grant one when conditions are dangerous.

Commissioner Fred Devish commented that he recently spoke with an individual who was denied a permit, who asked: what’s the point in even having permits available?

It’s a good question, he said.

“I think we need to revisit that,” Devish said, later adding, “If it’s a burn ban, it’s a burn ban.”

As the commissioner discussed how permits are handled, County Attorney Joe Baron explained that the ability to grant permits was originally made available at the request of the county commissioners.

He advised that denials should be, “In writing, particularly the reasons why, so that you have a record if it comes up”, because the landowner has the right to appeal to the commissioners at their next regular meeting.

Part of the reason for a permit, he said, is because landowners need to have insurance that names the county as beneficiary in the event of the fire getting out of control. It also protects adjoining landowners, which is why neighbors should be notified of planned burns.

This rule was instituted after the Oil Creek Fire in Weston County, according to Baron. At that time, he said, the courts decided that, unless there is a state statute saying that the person who set a fire is responsible for the cost of fighting it, the county has no recourse to recoup its costs if a burn gets out of control (except on county land).

Instead, “We have to make them contract liability,” he said.

It used to be the case, said Baron, that someone wanting a burn permit would need to come up with a plan, including fire suppression. They would usually say that this would be done by county firefighters, which isn’t good enough.

“They’re volunteers – you don’t know if anybody is going to show up,” he said.

The commissioners deliberated as to whether permits are a necessary provision. They are sometimes approved, said Commissioner Bob Latham, but, “Very few – it’s got to be the right situation.”

Harrison pointed out that he also has the ability to suspend the ban when conditions are favorable for a burn, which somewhat negates the need for permits.

Devish commented that the ban should still note that the county can continue to deal with State Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies when their burns potentially affect or include the county. This is a different circumstance, he said, as they have their own fire suppression and they carefully plan their burns.

“It takes them six months to write a plan,” he said.

Baron stated that he feels the county could and should request that other governmental agencies should be asked to follow the lead of the county’s fire restrictions. Some, like State Parks, already do, he said, and he believes this would not cause consternation.