Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Buffer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee backs bill to authorize wildfire buffer zones and use revolving fund for prevention work
Summary
House Bill 175, the Forest and Watershed Restoration Act amendment, was advanced by the House Appropriations and Finance Committee to create statutory buffer zones, expand eligible prevention projects under the Forest Conservation Act, and allow use of the Forest Land Protection Revolving Fund for buffer work.
House Bill 175, the Forest and Watershed Restoration Act amendment, was advanced by the House Appropriations and Finance Committee after sponsor Representative Vincent described the proposal as a way to create “strategic barriers between natural vegetation and residential areas” to slow wildfire spread and improve firefighter safety.
The bill would add statutory definitions for buffer zones and high-risk areas, expand eligible projects under the existing Forest Conservation Act to explicitly include protective buffers in wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, and allow the state forestry division to use recurring dollars in the Forest Land Protection Revolving Fund for prevention projects. Representative Vincent told the committee these steps are needed so “we have got to start working on buffer areas” and to “pull more timber out of our forest” to reduce community losses.
Witnesses and local officials backed the measure in public comment. Carrie Robin Brunder, representing Lincoln County, said thinning and a previously established treatment on Mescalero Apache land helped slow a 2024 fire near Ruidoso and urged the state to replicate those buffer approaches. Mike Morris, mayor of Clovis and a licensed insurance agent, said buffer work could help homeowners regain access to property insurance and recommended the policy change.
Committee members pressed for details about how buffer work would integrate with timber markets and existing or parallel legislation. Representative Duncan asked whether the bill would permit loggers to enter treated areas; Representative Vincent said the bill itself does not change timber grading statutes but that a separate timber grading bill could enable harvested material to reach mills or a bioenergy facility referenced for residuals in Ruidoso.
The sponsor and forestry witnesses said the revised statute would clarify priorities for using the Forest Land Protection Revolving Fund and improve the state’s ability to stage prevention work in high-risk areas. Committee members noted the South Fork/Ruidoso fire from June 18, 2024 as evidence of community vulnerability and cited Mescalero Apache thinning as a local example that “worked” when fires arrived.
Action: Ranking Member Chatfield moved that House Bill 175 do pass; Representative Sanchez seconded. With no recorded opposition, the committee approved the bill as moved.
Why it matters: Supporters said legislative clarity and a dedicated funding path would let the state scale preventive thinning and buffer creation across communities at high risk of wildfire. Skeptics focused on implementation details: how timber products are handled, where funding comes from, and how to prioritize communities.
The committee forwarded the bill with a do-pass recommendation; implementation details and related timber and building-code bills remain under discussion.
