House Natural Resources committee advances interim study on wildfire prevention and community resilience

The House Natural Resources Committee voted 10–4 to advance House Joint Resolution 62, an interim study directing lawmakers to examine wildfire prevention and community resilience across Montana.

Representative Becky Edwards of Bozeman, sponsor of HJ 62, described the measure as “a straightforward interim study bill that would examine wildfire prevention and community resiliency,” saying the proposal is aimed at identifying fiscally responsible tools to protect communities in the wildland‑urban interface. She urged the committee to give the study a “do pass” recommendation.

Why it matters: Testimony highlighted growing insurance withdrawals, rising recovery costs and the limits of forest fuels work alone to protect homes. Patty Hernandez, director of Headwaters Economics, testified that many losses start when ember showers ignite attics, gutters and decks and urged adoption of low‑cost, evidence‑based measures. “These are problems that we can fix,” Hernandez said, listing ember‑resistant vents, defensible space and wildfire‑resistant building practices.

Local practitioners and planners echoed that community‑scale solutions must complement landscape management. John Trapp, division chief of Wildland Fire for the Big Sky Fire Department, said Big Sky faces unusually high structural risk — “at a higher risk from wildfire impacts than 96% of U.S. communities” — and described local mitigation work including defensible‑space grants and mitigation crews. Karen Hughes, Missoula County planning director, told the committee that planning policy influences where and how communities grow and that a study should identify an adaptable toolbox — including codes, subdivision standards, access and water supply considerations, plus education and technical assistance — rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all rule.

What the resolution would do: Staff summarized HJ 62 as a study of statewide wildfire risk prevention and mitigation systems, covering impacts on communities, land‑use planning, legal and policy frameworks and potential solutions that could reduce risk.

Committee reaction: Some members voiced concern the study could lead to recommendations allowing local jurisdictions to adopt rules exceeding state baselines. Representative Henkel said the language on local codes and standards made him “cringe,” citing prior bills that restricted local planning authority. Edwards and other proponents replied that the study itself cannot enact regulations and is intended to gather options that communities could use.

Vote and next step: The committee conducted a roll call and recorded 10 ayes and 4 noes; the Chair announced HJ 62 passed and that Representative Edwards will carry the measure to the floor for further consideration.

Provenance: The resolution was introduced in committee hearing testimony and executive action beginning at SEG 036 and concluding with the committee vote and passage at SEG 623.