Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evacuation Orders And Rescue Reimbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill affirming right to refuse evacuation, requires reimbursement for rescues
Summary
House Bill 97, which affirms a person's right to refuse evacuation orders and requires reimbursement for rescues performed after refusal, was sent to the House floor with a due-pass recommendation after committee debate about liability, vulnerable populations and enforcement.
Representative Scott (sponsor) told the House State Affairs Committee that House Bill 97 adds a section to Title 46 (Disaster Preparedness and Response) affirming that a person may choose not to evacuate despite an official evacuation order, and that those who refuse and later require rescue must reimburse the agency that provides the rescue.
"The key parts of this Bill is it affirms that individuals have the right to evacuate from their home, - I'm sorry, have the right to refuse to evacuate from their home even when official evacuation orders have been issued," Representative Scott said. "Those who choose to stay, though, will have to accept risks and liabilities...If they call a rescue after they've been told to evacuate and they refuse, they must reimburse the agency for the cost of the rescue."
The sponsor said the provision is narrowly written to apply under the State Disaster Preparedness Act (Title 46) and not to supersede criminal or other law under Title 18 — for example, hostage or SWAT situations. Representative Scott cited large, well-known emergencies to justify the proposal, including Hurricane Katrina (2005), repeated California wildfires and the 2016 Henry Creek Fire in Bonneville County, which he said burned about "50,000 acres," to illustrate taxpayer costs when people refuse evacuation.
Committee members raised questions about how reimbursement would be enforced, particularly when rescued people live outside the county or state. Representative DeGarth noted that billing and successful collection can be difficult in practice. Representative Nicholson and others asked about vulnerable populations, such as people with Alzheimer's or mental-health issues, and whether liability would fall to caretakers; the sponsor said those situations would be challenging and suggested caregivers would typically be involved.
Representative Alfieri moved to send House Bill 97 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motion carried.
The bill proceeds to the full House for further consideration; committee members asked staff and sponsors for any necessary statutory mechanics to implement reimbursement and for clarification on collection and enforcement before floor action.
