Committee advances bill letting special fire and metro districts require vegetation removal, with due-process safeguards

House Bill 1009, a permissive measure that would give fire protection districts and metropolitan districts authority to adopt vegetative fuel mitigation programs on private property, moved out of the Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee after sponsors and stakeholders agreed several clarifying amendments.

The bill would allow districts that opt in to require removal of vegetative fuels such as dried grass, leaves and shrubs on private property, set a process for notice and appeal, and allow fines of up to $300 when property owners fail to comply. Representative Rose Morrow, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is “permissive, meaning you have to opt in” and is meant to give local districts a tool to reduce wildfire spread.

Supporters said the statute includes procedural safeguards. “Property owners have the right to file objections with the district board,” Morrow said during the presentation. Co‑sponsor Representative Joseph added the bill would use collected fines to help “seniors, individuals with disabilities, or low income individuals that may not be able to afford to conduct mitigation.”

Fire chiefs who testified said the measure fills a local gap. Mike Delorfano of South Metro Fire Rescue said enforceable vegetation programs are one tool among many to maintain defensible space and that the bill’s opt‑in design preserves local choice. Brad White, president of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs and fire chief at Grand Fire Protection District, described the difficulty of persuading absentee owners or short‑term rental operators to maintain defensible space and said the bill creates an avenue for action where none exists now.

Opponents and stakeholders pressed for guardrails during a lengthy question period. Realtors and agricultural groups sought explicit exemptions to avoid penalizing routine farm practices and to prevent liens being placed after long periods. In response the sponsors offered and the committee adopted several amendments: L001 (exempts land assessed as agricultural), L002 (authorizes districts to adopt subsequent International Code Council standards as appropriate), L003 (limits lien authority so a lien may not be placed until five or more unpaid fines for the same property), and L005 (requires public notice, hearing and comment before a district implements a program). L002 and L005 passed by voice; L003 passed on a roll call vote 8–3; the committee sent the bill as amended to the Committee of the Whole on a 9–4 vote.

Key operational details in the bill as amended include a three‑step notice process (sponsors described up to three notifications), a 10‑day cure period after each notice, and a fine cap of $300 intended to approximate the cost of removal. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the bill is designed to be used locally and is not intended to create a statewide mandatory program.

Supporters urged the committee to retain the opt‑in design and the locally adjustable details. Opponents warned about: (1) the practical difficulty of arranging mitigation contractors in busy seasons; (2) the potential for cumulative fines to accumulate over time; and (3) privacy and enforcement questions for vacant or leased properties. Witnesses suggested alternatives such as grant programs, pickup days for slash, and volunteer mitigation teams to reduce costs for low‑income or elderly property owners. Representative Morrow said sponsors remain willing to work with stakeholders on remaining drafting issues.

With the adopted amendments, HB1009 advances to the Committee of the Whole; the committee vote to report was 9–4.

Ending: The bill now goes to the Committee of the Whole with additional local‑control safeguards in place. Sponsors and affected stakeholders said they will continue technical work with districts, fire chiefs and local governments on enforcement language, notice procedures and options to help low‑income and elderly property owners cover mitigation costs.