Senate Finance committee adopts two amendments to Wildfire Prepared Act, delays final action over liability and mapping

Senate Bill 33, the Wildfire Prepared Act, was debated in the New Mexico Senate Finance Committee on a date not specified, where committee members approved two amendments but postponed final action so staff could answer remaining questions about liability, mapping and how an appropriation would be distributed.

The bill would create or reconstitute a multi‑agency wildfire task force to develop wildfire‑preparedness standards for communities and set up two grant streams: one to help local governments organize neighborhoods around a goal of 80% participation, and a second to provide direct home‑hardening grants for households that cannot afford retrofits. Sponsors and the state forester described the measure as an effort to reduce structure losses and restore insurer confidence in high‑risk areas.

The committee adopted an amendment, moved by Senator Gonzales and seconded by Senator Bison, that strikes the bill's appropriation language (page 9, lines 8'16). A second, sponsored by Senator Woods and described in committee as a rearrangement of existing language (page 6), removed wording that required only consideration of measures and inserted more direct language listing suppression and prevention measures such as thinning overgrown forests, conducting controlled burns and creating defensible space around structures. Both amendments were adopted without recorded objections and the bill was returned to the committee calendar for further work.

Laura McCarthy, State Forester, told the committee that if the bill passes with an emergency clause the task force would adopt wildfire‑prepared standards in April and immediately publish guidance and grant guidelines. McCarthy said the first grant would fund local governments to organize neighborhoods and that direct homeowner grants would follow for properties in neighborhoods that reach the 80% participation threshold.

Alyssa Kenny Geyer, representing the Sierra Club, voiced support for the bill and for establishing a 16‑member state wildfire task force and the $20 million in direct grants that the governor had proposed in the executive budget. "The task force will work with communities to improve building codes and adopt safer ecological forest management practices," she said, arguing such measures are cost‑effective for protecting homes in the wildland‑urban interface.

Committee members pressed the sponsors and agency staff on several implementation details. Senators and representatives asked who would be eligible for grants, how political subdivisions and tribal governments would be represented on the task force, what the timeline would be for mapping high‑risk areas, and what liability the state would assume if it endorsed standards and work was later followed by property damage.

Committee members heard several cost and program details: sponsors said the executive budget included $20,000,000 for direct grants and that the Legislative Finance Committee recommended roughly $600,000 for administrative operations; the forestry division said a separate mapping request was for about $800,000 to improve high‑risk area resolution. Staff and sponsors told the committee that commonly cited retrofit costs range from about $3,000 to $10,000 per home (exclusive of roof replacement), and that the $20 million figure would operate at a pilot scale, funding roughly 2,000 homes at midrange retrofit costs.

Several senators pressed the question of state liability and the limits of the anti‑donation doctrine; agency staff said legal counsel at the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) and other offices had reviewed the plan and believed the public benefit to neighborhoods would be the controlling factor, but committee members requested that EMNRD general counsel join the next meeting to explain the legal analysis. The committee chair agreed to bring the bill back after staff compiled answers on liability and task‑force composition and attendance rules.

Members also discussed program design features: (1) the sponsors described a two‑grant model (organizing grants to local governments and direct home‑hardening grants to individuals in qualifying neighborhoods); (2) officials said the task force would align proposed standards with industry guidance, including standards from the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS); and (3) the state forester said mapping currently exists but would need finer resolution to target grants effectively.

The committee heard from Sherk, a representative of the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), who said the bill "opens the conversation" about incidental benefit and tree‑clearing byproducts and that PNM can support the policy. Several lawmakers noted practical challenges: enforcing building‑code changes across distinct municipalities, determining eligibility where properties vary in value or use (including short‑term rentals), and ensuring the program would not leave vulnerable residents behind.

After discussion, the committee did not take a final vote on the bill. The sponsors agreed to have EMNRD's general counsel available at the next session to address liability questions, to clarify task‑force appointment and attendance authority, and to ensure mapping funds and timelines are aligned with grant rollout. The bill was placed back on the committee calendar for follow up.

Votes at a glance: two floor amendments were adopted in committee; no final passage vote on SB 33 was taken during this hearing.