Committee advances bill to certify prescribed‑burn managers and limit liability for certified burns; questions remain about notice and liability standards

Lawmakers considered House Bill 15‑57, a measure to create a voluntary DNR certification program for prescribed‑burn managers, set standards of practice, and revise civil liability for people conducting certified prescribed burns on private lands.

Representative Baird, the sponsor, described the bill as intended to “increase access and reduce barriers to a critical land restoration tool” and to codify DNR training and certification into rule. Supporters including academics, conservation nonprofits and private landowners described prescribed fire as a science‑based tool for restoring prairies and oak ecosystems, improving wildlife habitat, and reducing invasive plants.

Jared Brook, extension wildlife specialist at Purdue University and a member of the Indiana Prescribed Fire Council, explained that a burn plan, experience and training are central to safe prescribed fire. Robert McCray of the Conservation Law Center said the legislation was based on two years of stakeholder work and model language from other states and that a certification program would expand both safety and use of fire on private lands.

Key provisions discussed include: DNR authority to train and certify prescribed‑burn managers; an exemption allowing certified managers to burn during local open‑burn bans; and a civil immunity standard that raises the liability threshold for certified practitioners to gross negligence. Multiple witnesses and committee members discussed how raising the legal standard would likely affect insurance availability and costs for certified practitioners.

Several committee members pressed witnesses on public notice and liability. Witnesses said notification of adjacent landowners, county dispatch and volunteer fire departments is common practice and that the IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) open‑burn permit process includes notice elements; committee members noted the statutory bill text did not explicitly require public notice to broader communities and asked whether a second‑reading amendment could close that gap.

Opposition concerns focused on civil immunity. Representative Hostetler said he supported landowners’ ability to manage their land but was “a little…nervous” about the bill’s liability language; other committee members asked whether a sudden wind shift would qualify as gross negligence and whether the bar change would deny legitimate civil recourse. Attorneys and conservation groups testified that a shifting wind alone would likely not meet a gross‑negligence standard and that the statutory change was modeled on language in multiple other states.

The committee moved to pass the bill as amended; the chair called the roll but then left the vote open to allow members serving on other committees to register their positions. The transcript records the motion and the roll call beginning and later indicates the vote was being held open; no final tally appears in the provided excerpt.

If enacted, the bill would not strip a landowner’s right to burn; rather, it creates an optional certification and associated privileges for those who complete training and follow the rules.