From the Denver Post, an article titled Treating wildfires like other natural disasters. The issue is described as follows:
Earlier this year, the president asked Congress to allow Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) disaster fund money to be used to fight the biggest fires. That request has not been approved, and last week the president again asked that wildfires be treated like other catastrophic events.
In his letter to Congress, the president asked for authority “to respond to severe, complex and threatening fires or a severe fire season in the same way we as we fund other natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes.” The request would put this Western problem on par with other calamities. And it would enable the Forest Service to use more of its resources for forest-thinning and other fire-reduction activities. Congress should see the wisdom and parity in this approach.
Update: Please see the comment from someone who really knows the legal underpinnings of this issue. [Note: the Diva sent this exchange to the Denver Post.]
Recovery Diva 
“Earlier this year, the president asked Congress to allow Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) disaster fund money to be used to fight the biggest fires. That request has not been approved, and last week the president again asked that wildfires be treated like other catastrophic events.”
Interesting how people mix things up. The Disaster Relief Fund is already used to fight wildfires. Section 420 of the Stafford Act already authorizes the President to use the DRF to provide grants for the “control of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland that threatens such destruction as would constitute a major disaster.” Interestingly, the authority to do this has been delegated to the FEMA Administrator for years, unlike the ability to declare a major disaster or emergency which has never been delegated by any President. The section also presumably allows for direct Federal response actions, rather than just grants, but as far as I can tell, that authority has never been used.
The proposed legislation actually has nothing to do with the Stafford Act or the DRF. Instead it would provide new flexibility for “Wildland Fire Management” by allowing those funds to remain until expended and designate this amount as an emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget Act of 1985. If I’m right, this makes it far easier for Congress to provide these funds without having to balance it out against other existing expenses.
So what it really does is provide a separate Federal program flexibility and funding akin to that found in the DRF and the Stafford Act, but they are two entirely different pots of money and authority. This is probably one reason why whatever request the Post was referring to would be disapproved, because there was already existing authority and funds elsewhere to fight the fires and the Stafford Act and its DRF aren’t needed.
This is also another excellent example of the dearth of actual experts, or academics, who actually understand these issues and to which the Denver Post Editorial Board, and others, can rely to understand Federal Homeland Security issues covering emergency management. And too often when they do look for one, they are some retired DoD senior officer, terrorism or security expert attempting to masquerade as an expert on disaster or emergency management and parachute in with an opinion. Troubling really. No wonder the Post is confused.