Can the federal government be sued if it is negligent in setting forest fires?
The prescribed burn was supposed to thin out the forest, eliminate dry brush and perhaps even help the area reseed itself. What it has done is burn the city of Los Alamos off the map, cause the evacuation of 25,000 people, and require the deployment of more than 1,000 emergency and fire personnel. Because it’s too scary to think about, I haven’t even mentioned that the fire, for a time, threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory where conventional explosives and nuclear material is stored. I understand that setting fires is risky business, particularly in wilderness areas that suffered one of the driest winters on record. But it also seems to me that because of that inherent danger, the match should not be struck until those responsible are as sure as they can be that there are no known problems that could be avoided — like, oh, say, just for example, the winds are going to blowing a bazillion miles per hour. As we can see by watching television, hot winds, dry brush and fire do no
Related Questions
- How can I find out about employment opportunities with the Federal Government / Forest Service / North Central Research Station?
- What is the federal government’s role in setting educational standards for Southern Maryland schools?
- Can the federal government be sued if it is negligent in setting forest fires?
