Raw logs from thinning operations in the Oregon Coast Range, awaiting export on the docks in Astoria. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

A recent CounterPunch article by Faith Kearns argued that municipal watersheds should be “thinned” or logged to reduce wildfire risk, citing California’s Tubbs and Camp Fires, Oregon’s Almeda Fire, and Colorado’s Marshall Fire. But here’s the crucial point: only the Camp Fire started near a forest. The other three fires were either grass fires or urban/suburban fires in areas that weren’t considered forested. Logging miles of fire-adapted forests would not have prevented these disasters. The real threats were aging infrastructure, flammable buildings, and poorly planned communities.

The Dragon Bravo Fire at the Grand Canyon underscores the same lesson. Plastic pipes from the 1960s, a chlorine treatment facility in a high-risk zone, and limited redundancy left the system exposed. Firefighters had to retreat from hazardous chemicals, and water had to be trucked in. These failures were not caused by “overgrown” forests. Urban and suburban fires, fueled by infrastructure and plastics, caused the water disruptions, not distant forests.

Logging and thinning fire-adapted forests do not protect watersheds. Removing trees destabilizes soils, increases erosion, and sends sediment downstream — exactly what municipal water managers aim to avoid. Roads, heavy machinery, and tree removal worsen these effects. In contrast, intact, fire-adapted forests regulate flows, stabilize soils, filter water, and maintain ecosystem function. They are the natural defenders of watersheds.

Real solutions are straightforward: upgrade and protect infrastructure. Bury pipes, replace flammable plastics with fire-resistant materials, shield chemicals, decentralize water systems, and ensure backup power. Train fire crews and water operators together. Build redundancy into the system. These steps directly reduce the risk of catastrophic water failure. Logging and bulldozing logging roads in upstream forests does nothing to protect water systems and, in fact, make matters worse.

We should reject the false narrative that thinning or logging forests is the key to water safety. Fire-adapted forests are part of the solution, not the problem. Protecting them preserves watershed function, buffers streams, and supports ecological resilience — all while safeguarding communities. Logging these forests undermines these functions and increases erosion and downstream risks.

There is no trade-off between protecting water systems and protecting forests. Wildfire disasters are caused by human infrastructure, vulnerability, and poor planning — not by intact, fire-adapted ecosystems. The focus must be on community-centered planning and resilient infrastructure, not industrial logging in upstream forests.

Communities facing increasingly intense and complex wildfire conditions need real, science-based solutions. Logging forests won’t save water. Protecting intact, fire-adapted forests and strengthening infrastructure will.