House committee OKs bill to fund neighborhood-scale home hardening, create wildfire preparedness task force

The House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee voted to advance Senate Bill 33 on March 4 after supporters described the measure as a targeted, grant‑based program to reduce structure loss from wildfire and to help homeowners regain access to property insurance in high‑risk areas.

Sponsor Representative Vincent told the committee rising insurance costs and catastrophic fires have left homeowners in places such as Lincoln County unable to obtain affordable coverage. "One of my friends lives in Ruidoso... his property insurance was $2,200 a year. Now it's almost $7,000," Vincent said. "If you have a mortgage and you can't provide insurance, you no longer have a mortgage. So people can be foreclosed on."

The bill would create a task force to develop defensible‑space and home‑hardening standards and mapping methodology; the task force would align standards with national industry guidance such as the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS). It also authorizes two types of grants: (1) grants to political subdivisions to organize neighborhoods, modify structures, reduce hazardous fuels and certify properties as "wildfire prepared," and (2) grants to "qualified entities" to assist eligible property owners with retrofits and property work. "We don't want random acts of retrofitting," expert witness Laura McCarthy told the committee. "We want whole neighborhoods into a condition where they can actually survive a wildfire."

Supporters from the Sierra Club, local homeowners associations and the IBHS said grant funds and coordinated neighborhood approaches make mitigation affordable and effective. Michael Newman, general counsel for IBHS, told the committee that research identifies common characteristics of surviving homes and that neighborhood‑scale programs can reduce the risk of building‑to‑building fire spread.

Several committee members pressed for details the bill leaves to the task force. Representative Curtis asked whether existing structures would be required to comply; the sponsor and expert witnesses said the bill would not impose retrofits but would make eligibility for grant funding contingent on standards developed by the task force. The substitute adds mapping as an early task: "one of the very first things the task force will do is decide on mapping methodology and get that work done so that...we'll need to set priorities based on data," the expert said.

Committee members also raised constitutional questions about the state's anti‑donation clause and whether grants that pay for work on private property fit established exceptions. Legal counsel explained case law focusing on whether private gain is incidental to a public purpose and said the draft ties benefits to neighborhood‑scale public objectives to reduce community risk. Representative Montoya said she remained unconvinced and described the constitutional issue as the reason she voted no on the measure.

The committee approved a motion to advance the bill by roll call. The sponsor and supporters said the measure aims to reduce property loss, improve insurability and reduce downstream costs from post‑fire debris and watershed damage. The bill includes a statutory direction that at least 50% of grant money awarded go to residential purposes and is linked in testimony to a separate buffers bill that would authorize fuel‑reduction buffers on private lands adjacent to national forest.

If enacted, the task force would set detailed eligibility criteria, mapping methods and grant administration rules; the committee substitute assigns those specifics to the task force rather than specifying them in statute. Supporters emphasized coordination with state forestry, the state fire marshal, the construction industries division and the superintendent of insurance.

The committee record includes several requests for additional guardrails: clearer eligibility criteria in statute, an explicit public‑purpose rationale addressing the anti‑donation clause, and language allowing designees on the task force if agency heads cannot attend. The sponsor said $20 million was in the budget for the program and that task‑force guidance and data‑driven prioritization would govern grant distribution.

While the committee advanced the bill, several members said they will continue to press for more prescriptive statutory language and clearer constitutional justification during later consideration. "We have to figure out a way to get people some insurance," Representative Vincent said. "We have to be proactive."