“Protecting homes and people from wildfires is expensive. Even more costly are the recovery efforts following the wildfire, which include road repairs, landscape rehabilitation, home and property restoration and infrastructure rebuilding. Many of these secondary impacts take months or years to fully manifest and add millions of dollars to the overall costs of a wildfire.

“Although the federal government pays for a bulk of immediate suppression costs, or money spent on firefighting, nearly half of all other short- and long-term damages from wildfires are incurred at the local level.”

“The cost of California’s historic 2017 wildfires has not been completely tallied but likely will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. What we do know is this: Cities and counties, in the end, will foot at least half of the bill,” noted Ray Rasker in a Los Angeles Times column….

“Scores of communities across California are just now starting to confront what our research found: that the cost of the 2017 fires will burden local homeowners, businesses and governments for many years to come. Decisions on how and where to rebuild lie ahead for them, and this is the moment they should implement wildfire-resistant building policies, for the protection of both lives and city coffers.”

After last year’s calamity, officials are making the same decisions that put homeowners at risk in the first place…

In 2016, Rasker, from Headwaters Economics, took that message to the Obama administration. Invited to the White House for a meeting about wildfires, he argued that local officials were issuing building permits near national forests and parks knowing that federal forest firefighters were likely to protect them—and pick up the cost.

“There’s this disconnect between local land-use authority and what happens when things go wrong,” Rasker recalls saying. He urged officials to seek ways to increase federal grants and other payments to communities that made smart land-use decisions and cut funds for those that didn’t. The White House staff said they agreed with him, Rasker says. Nothing changed.

Look at statewide numbers and Montana’s economy seems to be doing well. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of jobs in the state of Montana grew 20 percent, according to a report released last year by Headwaters Economics. Personal income grew, as did statewide employment.

If you live outside a city, though, there’s a good change you won’t see much evidence of that growth. For the next six months, a group of journalists from western Montana, supported by High Country News and the Solutions Journalism Network, will dig into the question: What are Montana communities, especially rural ones, doing to respond to this trend, to help their residents weather the economic winter? And what could they learn from other communities?

Preemptive purchase of land or development rights in fire-prone areas, whether before or after a fire, is one recommendation of a 2014 white paper published by Headwaters Economics, a Montana nonprofit research group that focuses on land management. Funds could come from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund or local bond elections, it said.

The key is weighing the cost of protecting homes against the value of the property. Northern California’s Sierra foothills showed promise, Headwaters executive director Ray Rasker said.

“We looked at some fires that cost $700,000 per home,” Rasker said. “Pretty soon you look at the situation where it would have been cheaper to just buy the open space.”

Like most critics of current practices, though, Rasker sees land buyouts as only secondary to a more urgent effort to discourage new development in fire-prone areas.

The Headwaters report found that only about 16% of what is called the wildland-urban interface has been developed in the West, leaving room for huge increases in fire vulnerability if local planning boards continue to approve developments there.

…In the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion of development in high fire-risk areas. There’s a term for this in the firefighting world: the WUI, pronounced like “wooey,” short for wildland urban interface. In states from California to Arizona to Washington, cabins, vacation homes and increasingly whole towns and even cities are spreading into forests and wildlands.

Research from the western think tank Headwaters Economics shows that in the West, there are some 2 million homes considered to be at direct risk of wildfires. There are no signs of this trend of building in the WUI slowing down, even as climate change is predicted to bring longer and hotter fire seasons.

Two million homes bump against wildlands in the West, the majority in two states with the highest risk, Washington and California, according to Headwaters Economics, an independent nonprofit group that studies wildfire prevention. People get to live and work in remote locations with beautiful views, but the value of properties at a moderate to high risk of being engulfed is about $500 billion, according to CoreLogic, a company that studies real estate economics, not to mention the risk to people’s lives.

“It’s a witch’s brew,” Tom Harbour, the former national fire and aviation director for the Forest Service, said for a 2015 story about the challenges his firefighters faced when he sent them to fight fires that are better left alone to burn. “The risk keeps increasing. I’m putting firefighters in harm’s way.”

Chris Mehl, policy director with Headwaters Economics, a Montana research group that specializes in land use policies including fire prevention, said California would be forced into building more resilient communities.

“This trend is impossible — we can’t keep this up,” he said of the increasingly frequent fires. “But how we build and where we build and the extent and the density — these are all things that are in our control,” he said.

Decisions on land management — issues like oil and gas exploration or balancing the needs of industry and tourism — can pit neighbor against neighbor. Ray Rasker and Headwaters Economics, the nonprofit research group he leads, jump into the fray, helping communities in the West make smart, data-driven decisions.

Sometimes Headwaters Economics goes deep, like its program to curb threats posed by today’s more frequent wildfires that burn bigger and longer than ever.

The group brought together experts from across the country for a forum to come up with solutions. Headwaters is now working with 18 cities and counties — and will start meeting with eight more next year — to reduce their risk. The group identifies neighborhoods facing the biggest threat and helps rewrite ordinances with fire safety in mind. A municipality might, for example, require flame-retardant roofs on homes built near forests.

“A think tank would write a white paper and say, ‘Here are some solutions,’ ” Mr. Rasker says. “We don’t do that. We say, ‘Here are some solutions, and we can solve it.’ ”

Other projects aim to package data in easy-to-use formats. Through the group’s Economic Profile System, users pull data from 17 federal agencies on topics like economic development and land use, and generate reports by county, region, state, or nationwide. Compiling such reports from scratch would take weeks of work, even for trained economists, Mr. Rasker says

Because Headwaters helps people discover facts, the organization is often able to avoid the political divisiveness now roiling the country, Mr. Rasker says.

“When I get back in the car and I’m driving home, I think to myself, ‘That was just the coolest group of people,’ ” he says. “It never occurred to me to think about whether they were Democrats or Republicans. It’s irrelevant. Those are folks who love where they live. They’re very passionate about their neighbors and about their community, and they’re trying to do the best they can.”

…Amy Roberts, the head of Boulder’s Outdoor Industry Association, which spearheaded the trade show move from Utah to Denver, said it is evident that the administration was unprepared for the backlash.“They underestimated how people feel about their public lands.”

Roberts thinks Trump didn’t have the right information when he signed off on the monument reduction. Since he campaigned on a promise to revive rural economies, Roberts said, he must not have seen the Headwaters Economics study showing the 1.9 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument between 2001 and 2015 spurred population growth of 13 percent around the region while personal income grew 32 percent and jobs grew by 24 percent.

Maybe, Roberts said, Trump missed these key points: the 2.8 million comments submitted during Zinke’s review of 27 national monuments, a vast majority of which supported current monument designations and the OIA report showing Americans spending $887 billion on outdoor gear and travel, supporting 7.6 million jobs and $125 billion in federal, state and local taxes.