Over the past several years, Spokane has been no stranger to wildfire smoke. It tends to roll in late summer, after months of dry weather inevitably leads to a conflagration somewhere to our north or west. In August and September, we can go weeks without seeing blue sky. Unfortunately, it seems to be getting worse—some days this past fire season felt downright post-apocalyptic.

It’s easy to lay blame at the feet of forest managers, which has become standard practice among some local residents and right-wing politicians. Indeed, active forest management and stewardship—including prescribed burns, tree thinning, fuel brakes, and other practices—does decrease the risk of wildfires. 

Unfortunately, it’s an incomplete analysis of the present situation.

First, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) already employs these practices, and even incentivizes private landowners to follow them. Notably, however, it controls just 2.5 million acres of our state’s forested land. The federal government, on the other hand, manages ten million acres, and remains decades behind innovative state-level agencies like DNR. Any land management plan without federal participation will be inadequate in a state where almost thirty percent of the land is federally owned. So yes, land management is a problem, but the federal administration probably deserves more blame than the state.

Second, focusing on land management neglects another pressing problem: land use and the urban-rural interface. As rural areas have become increasingly disturbed by human activity, the risk of wildfire has grown dramatically. Homes built on the urban fringe, while desirable to some for their seclusion, also carry the possibility that some type of failure—a downed power line, a stray spark from a vehicle, a gas leak—could lead to catastrophe. We must increase restrictions on rural development in fire zones and continue to prioritize development in previously developed areas. Where that isn’t possible, we should educate property owners and require them to take precautions, like clearing brush around their property, and penalize them for noncompliance.

Third, like it or not, climate change absolutely does play a role. The relationship is not as direct as “X amount of warming caused Y fire,” and there are many possible pathways. A long drought could increase the amount of fuel available in the event of a major fire. Perversely, increased winter rain and snowfall followed by drier summers—as predicted for the Pacific Northwest by top climatologists—could increase the fuel density available to fires later in the year. And increased atmospheric instability can cause lightning, resulting in more fire starts. Bold action on climate change could help mitigate some of these risks.

Unfortunately, purging our summers of smoke and maintaining good air quality is not as simple as firing state forest managers. Returning to a more typical wildfire season will require close federal cooperation, development restrictions and landowner action, and long-overdue global action on climate change. And even that might not be enough.

It’s a tough order, but to breathe easier, we’ve got to try.