House committee advances bill to define wildfire buffer zones, allow forestry fund use

Representative Vincent presented House Bill 175, the Forest and Watershed Restoration Act amendment, to the House Appropriations & Finance Committee and the panel voted to advance the measure.

The bill sets statutory definitions for buffer zones and high‑risk areas, explicitly makes creation and maintenance of protective buffers in wildland‑urban interface areas an eligible project, and authorizes the State Forestry Division to use recurring dollars from the Forest Land Protection Revolving Fund for those prevention projects. Sponsor Representative Vincent said the buffers “significantly slow the spread of wildfires by creating strategic barriers between natural vegetation and residential areas” and argued the change will give firefighters safer, more defensible operational areas.

Why it matters: Lawmakers and witnesses said the proposal aims to reduce community vulnerability in places that border forests and rangelands. Committee members referenced the June 18, 2024, South Fork/Ruidoso fire as an example of how treated tribal or other proactively managed lands slowed fire spread and protected homes.

State Forester (expert witness) told the committee the bill makes three strategic amendments to existing law: it defines buffer zones and high risk areas, it explicitly includes buffer creation and maintenance as eligible projects, and it enables the forestry division to use the recurring funds in the Forest Land Protection Revolving Fund for prevention projects. The forester emphasized there is no appropriation in the bill itself.

Public testimony supported the bill. Carrie Robin Brunder of Lincoln County said the Mescalero Apache thinning project likely saved the village of Ruidoso last summer and urged that lessons be extended statewide. Mike Morris, mayor of Clovis and a licensed insurance agent, told the committee he supports the bill and said buffers are “a crucial step” that will improve safety and help restore affordable property insurance markets.

Committee members asked how timber and mill markets would be affected. The sponsor and forester said another bill on timber grading will help make extracted material marketable and described a local bio‑processing plant as an outlet for residuals. Questions also covered whether municipalities have ordinances or local foresters that do property evaluations; the forester and sponsor said some localities do and suggested the bill would encourage broader adoption.

The committee’s ranking member, Representative Chatfield, moved that the bill do pass; Representative Sanchez seconded. There was no recorded roll‑call tally in the committee transcript; the chair announced the motion carried with no opposition observed.

What’s next: The bill advances from committee; the bill contains no direct appropriation and would rely on existing revolving fund dollars and other state funding vehicles for implementation if it becomes law.