House rejects amendment to double wildland fire module funding in HB36

A floor amendment to House Bill 36 that would have doubled the state’s initial wildland fire module from one to two — with corresponding increases in staffing and appropriations — failed on a roll‑call vote on Feb. 12. Representative Connelly, who offered the amendment on second reading, described precise changes to the bill’s staffing and dollar amounts, saying the amendment would "double" module counts and funding to place 1 module on the east and 1 on the west side of the state to improve response times (Representative Connelly, SEG 503–536).

Supporters framed the amendment as an investment in firefighter capacity and an insurance policy against costly outside deployments. Representative Fornstrom said the amendment "could save money" in a major fire and argued added modules would be used for mitigation work when not fighting active fires (SEG 700–721). Representative Byron recalled responding to a large wildfire and said faster statewide access to modules can reduce local resource strain (SEG 636–669).

Opponents warned of hiring, management and fiscal risks. Representative Bair urged caution, saying JAC and interim work recommended starting with a single module to ensure it can be managed well before expanding (SEG 560–581). Representative Harrelson cautioned about a roughly $3.0 million fiscal effect and asked whether the state should try one module first (SEG 616–633).

Because the amendment included new appropriations it required a roll‑call vote. The chief clerk called the roll and the House recorded 29 yes, 31 no, and 2 excused; the amendment was not adopted (SEG 731–775).

The underlying HB36 remained on the calendar for third reading after the amendment failed.