Senator Dianne Feinstein Seeks to Make Federal Funding for Fire Prevention Available Sooner

Washington, DC ­ At a Senate Energy and Natural Resourcess
Committee today, (5/12/2004) U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called on the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to make federal funding to remove the dead
and dying trees which threaten our forests available more quickly.

This request came in light of the recent fires in Southern
California, which consumed more than 20,000 acres of land, and the
disclosure that much the funding slated for fuels reduction was not getting
to the communities that need it most.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture agreed to waive the
25 percent local cost-share requirements under the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
Additionally, the Department agreed to reduce the local cost-share
requirements for U.S. Forest Service funding to remove hazardous fuels on
private lands from 50 percent to 25 percent, which is the minimum
permissible cost-share.

The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein's
statement: (SEE mention of Mount Shasta Biomass to Energy Project below)

Even though the calendar says it's only May, more than 20,000 acres
already burned in Southern California last week ­ oon top of 750,000 acres
last fall.

Clearly we need to do everything possible to prepare for potentially
catastrophic wildfires this summer. In our efforts to prepare, there is
some good news and some areas of concern that I want to review:

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Rey, and Secretary Veneman for agreeing in the context of Southern California's emergency to waive the 25 percent
local cost-share requirements under the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's Emergency Watershed Protection Program.

There has been a logjam in getting to the ground $120 million in this
program's funding to remove dead trees from critical evacuation routes and
from right around homes. Waiving the cost-share requirement is a major
step forward, and I appreciate it.

I am concerned, however, that even with waiving the local cost-share only
$30 million of the $120 million is projected to be spent this year.

We need to move more quickly. I understand that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service is studying bottlenecks and may propose a streamlined
process by the end of this week. I look forward to your feedback.

I also understand that in a partnership between the Forest Service, the
California Energy Commission, and the Department of Energy Natural
Renewable Energy Lab, three demonstration biomass-to-energy plants will be
built by next year in Big Bear, in the town of Mount Shasta, and in the
Lake Tahoe Basin.

This is welcome news. We need to build more biomass-to-energy plants,
which reduce the costs of removing hazardous fuels by providing a use for
the product, and help meet California's energy needs at the same time.

Finally, I am concerned that the Administration's budget proposes a 42% cut
in funding for hazardous fuel reduction and fire management on State and
private lands, from $147 million in FY 2004 to $85 million.

California's Fire Safe Councils, which help communities plan to protect
themselves, have sent me a letter raising concerns about these funding cuts.

I have joined in a bipartisan letter with Senators Wyden, Craig and others
seeking to increase funding for community plans to reduce hazardous fuels.

I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.

Further information about Senator Dianne Feistein's position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at her website: http://feinstein.senate.gov.