Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Efsa Definition Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming forester proposes widening EFSA statutory definition to cover all state‑administered lands
Summary
Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris asked legislators to consider updating Title 36 language so the Emergency Fire Suppression Account (EFSA) can pay suppression costs on all state‑administered lands, not only lands defined as state trust lands.
Get email alerts on the Efsa Definition Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris asked the Joint Appropriations Committee to consider statutory language changes to the Emergency Fire Suppression Account (EFSA) so the fund explicitly covers “all state administered lands” rather than only lands defined in the current Title 36 definitions.
Norris said EFSA currently uses definitions from chapter 36 that identify state trust lands (lands under the Board of Land Commissioners). She noted Wyoming manages other state lands — state parks, Game and Fish holdings and agency property — that are outside that statutory definition and, in practice, can cause uncertainty over suppression billing when those lands burn.
Why it matters: The proposed change is aimed at reducing billing disputes and clarifying which state property EFSA can reimburse. Norris said the state forester’s authority to coordinate fire management and reimbursement was expanded by the enactment referenced in the meeting (enrolled act 62, following last year’s legislative action), and the statute change would align EFSA’s definitions with that expanded authority.
Committee questions and clarifications Senator Larson asked whether the State Board (Board of Land Commissioners) had been briefed; Norris said not yet but offered to present the concept to the Board. Norris clarified that the change would not reduce or alter existing protections for state trust lands; it would only make EFSA inclusive of additional state‑administered properties for suppression reimbursement.
Ending Norris described the proposal as a ‘‘clean up’’ to reconcile statutory language with current agency duties. The committee asked staff to examine statutory text and return recommended language so the change would not create unintended conflicts with existing trust‑land rules.

