Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilson County reinstates 90-day burn ban as fire incidents rise
Summary
Commissioners voted to reinstate a countywide burn ban for 90 days after emergency management reported a spike in fires and worsening dryness; exceptions, enforcement roles and public education were discussed.
Wilson County Commissioners Court voted to reinstate a countywide burn ban for 90 days, citing a recent spike in fire responses and persistently dry conditions.
The order, approved by voice vote, will run for 90 days unless the court revisits it earlier or substantial rain occurs. Cindy Stafford, the county's emergency management coordinator, told the court the county had responded to dozens of fire calls in a short period and that the county's Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) was rising. "I do believe the general consensus is the county should go back into a burn ban," Stafford said.
The nut graf: Commissioners said the restriction is intended to reduce the number of rapidly spreading vegetation fires that have strained volunteer and paid fire resources across Wilson County in recent weeks.
In discussion, Stafford and other speakers reviewed what the ban permits and does not permit under state law. Stafford noted that Local Government Code provisions and the International Fire Code (IFC) inform what is allowable during a local burn ban, including limited exceptions for firefighter training, public utilities, natural gas line work, mining operations and agricultural burns tied to planting or harvesting of crops. She said there are currently no certified prescribed-burn managers available in the region, limiting that option.
A volunteer fire chief who addressed the court supported the ban, saying, "I'm gonna definitely say I'm in favor. I think we should go back to the burn ban because last week was horrible." Commissioners and staff also discussed the need for training before assigning county equipment or crews to wildfire operations and the potential for interlocal mutual aid from neighboring counties.
Court members clarified enforcement and permitting. Stafford and others said the county does not itself issue state burn permits; county officials asked that sheriffs and constables be prepared to cite illegal burns. Stafford told the court the sheriff's office and constables have ticketing authority; if a person lacks a state permit for an agricultural burn, the responding deputy or constable should cite that violation.
Commissioner Peridola moved to reinstate the burn ban for 90 days; Commissioner King seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.
County staff also said the court will revisit the ban at its first meeting in June or earlier if weather conditions change. Stafford and other speakers urged adding public-education measures to the county's hazard-mitigation outreach so residents know burning rules and how to reduce wildfire risk around structures.
The court asked county attorneys, the sheriff and fire chiefs to coordinate on a simple checklist for deputies and dispatchers to use when determining whether a call is an allowable burn or requires fire-department response. Staff emphasized that the ban is intended to protect life and property and that exceptions are narrowly defined under state law and the IFC.
The court's action takes effect immediately; the county will publicize the order and the exceptions and will re-evaluate the ban earlier if substantial rain arrives.
