Burning down the house: wildfires, cultural burning, and the perverse incentive structure of the clean air act

• Pages: 297-323
• Date: 01 January 2025
• Published date: 01 January 2025
• Author: Margaret A. McCallister
• Subject Matter: Derecho Civil

NOTE

Burning Down the House: Wildfires, Cultural Burning,

and the Perverse Incentive Structure of the Clean Air Act

MARGARET A. MCCALLISTER*

ABSTRACT

Rising global temperatures are contributing to an alarming trend of increasingly

damaging wildland fires. Controlled burns (or prescribed fires) can mitigate wildfire

smoke and break the cycle of increasingly destructive wildfires. However, United

States forest policy has long focused on fire suppression. This Note discusses how fed-

eral regulations, particularly under the Clean Air Act, discourage controlled burns.

The Clean Air Act establishes a complex regulatory framework for managing air

quality. The “exceptional events” provision allows regulatory flexibility for wildfire

emissions but does not give the same to prescribed burns. Although some scholar-

ship has discussed the exceptional events rule, there is no current scholarship that

examines the particular hardships this rule places on Native American populations.

A case study of the Klamath region of California highlights how the displacement

of Yurok and Karuk Tribes disrupted controlled burns, and how current efforts to

restore Tribal burning practices face practical regulatory barriers.

This Note underscores the need to clarify federal positions and adjust the

exceptional events rule to align better with public health goals. It recommends

that Congress redefine “exceptional events” to account for prescribed burns and

urges the Environmental Protection Agency to publish clearer guidance docu-

ments for both prescribed burns and wildfires, considering the latest science on

emissions from both sources.

* Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 2024; Princeton University, B.S.E. 2019. © 2025,

Margaret Ann McCallister. This Note has benefited enormously from the insightful feedback of

Professor Lisa Heinzerling and the discussions held in her Environmental Advocacy class. Thank you to

all the Staff members and Editors at Georgetown Environmental Law Review, for their feedback,

suggestions, and insights, especially Conor Winters, Rachel Garwin, and Chelsea Welch. Thank you to

Professor Mark Zondlo, who advised my undergraduate thesis, The Impact of Wildfire Emissions: Ozone

Precursors and their Contribution to Ambient Pollution, that inspired my academic interest in wildfires,

smoke, and air quality advocacy. The view and ideas expressed in this Note are solely mine and do not

represent the viewpoint of any past or present employer. All errors are my own.

297

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

I. Rising Global Temperatures and Fire Suppression Policies Have

Contributed to a Trend of Increasingly Damaging Wildfires . . . . . . . . . . 299

II. Prescribed Fire Offers a Path Towards Mitigating Wildfire Smoke and

Breaking the Cycle of Increasingly Damaging Wildfires. . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

III. The Long National Tradition of Fire Suppression Policy is Likely to

Continue Absent Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

IV. Federal Regulations Under the Clean Air Act Discourage Controlled

Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

A. The Clean Air Act Sets Out a Complex Regulatory Framework for

Managing Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

B. “Exceptional Events” Provide a Regulatory Escape Hatch for

Wildfires But Not Prescribed Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

C. The Most Recent NAAQS Reviews Fail to Appropriately

Acknowledge the Loophole Created by the Exceptional Events Rule 311

V. Case Study: The Klamath Region of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

A. The Karuk And Yurok Tribes Historically Practiced Cultural

Burning in the Klamath Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

B. The Karuk and Yurok Tribes of The Klamath Region were

Systematically Displaced from their Land, Which Effectively Halted

the Practice of Controlled Burns in the Klamath Region . . . . . . . . 314

C. Recent Wildfire Devastation has Spurred Efforts to Restore Tribal

Burning Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

D. Regulatory and Jurisdictional Barriers Prevent Tribes from

Practicing Cultural Burning Effectively or Efficiently . . . . . . . . . . 317

VI. There Is Ample Opportunity to Clarify Federal Positions and Reconfigure

the Exceptional Events Rule to Better Align with the Public Health Goals

of the Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

A. Congress Should Amend the Clean Air Act Either by Reforming the

Exceptional Events Rule to Account for Prescribed Burning or by

Eliminating the Exemption Altogether . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

B. EPA Should Publish Clearer Guidance Documents for Prescribed

Burns and Wildfires that Account for the Latest Emissions Science 322

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

298 THE GEORGETOWN ENVTL. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37:297