As firefighters begin to contain the mammoth California Rim Fire, it would be comforting to consider the 350-square-mile blaze a one-off catastrophe. Unfortunately, it’s more likely an example of what we can expect from the next major wildfire. And the next.

Although the expansive fire—the fourth largest in California history—is an anomaly in terms of its size and the speed at which it spread, it represents the type of fires that are likely to increasingly occur under climate change. Adding to that morass is the fact that the U.S. Forest Service, facing so many big fires in recent years, has chosen to prioritize suppression at the expense of fuel-management programs.

"We've got to invest up front in terms of controlling and managing these fires," Jonathan Jarvis, director of the National Park Service, told Reuters. "Just waiting for the big fire and then throwing everything you've got at it makes no sense."

For decades, foresters have seen the value of letting wildfires, especially remote and uncontrollable fires, burn almost unhindered. The practice often results in hardier ecosystems and creates natural firebreaks that can stave off bigger, future fires.

In the case of the Rim Fire, about 25 square miles that burned in the blaze had been slated for a fuel reduction, but the state lacked the money to make it happen, according to Reuters.

“This is a colossal unfunded backlog of critically important fuel-reduction work,” John Buckley, executive director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource, told the news service. “[The projects] would have inarguably made the Rim Fire far easier to contain, far less expensive and possibly not even a major disaster.”

And so continues the vicious cycle of spending money to suppress fires that could have been prevented by fuel management.

“Federal budgets have not increased,” Caitlyn Pollihan of the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition told CNBC News. “So over time the suppression costs have taken more of the bigger piece of the pie, leaving less for forest management activities and other preventive work.”

According to CNBC, wildland fire costs had hit the $1 billion mark at the end of August and the USFS was planning to allocate $600 million from timber, recreation, and other programs to meet firefighting needs. That’s still significantly under the nearly $2 billion spent in 2012—the second highest fire season on record in terms of acres burned.

Then, facing budget shortfalls, the USFS decided to fight fires while they’re small, rather than risk letting naturally burning fires grow to the point where they threatens homes and other assets and require significant resources to control.

Although a March 2013 statement by USFS Chief Tom Tidwell said those measures were no longer necessary, without an increase in funding and a shift in attitudes on fuel management the cycle will continue.

“It’s not that we don’t know how to deal with this issue,” Tom Harbour, director of Fire and Aviation Management for the Forest Service, told the Durango Herald. “It’s finding the collective will, the collective priority, the collective energy to have this be a significant enough issue that we want to tackle.”