Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances wildfire bill that would allow state suppression on federal land; forest professionals warn of legal, safety risks
Summary
Senators debated House Bill 389, which would allow the governor to direct state resources to suppress fires on federal land and authorize the attorney general to pursue civil cost recovery. Supporters cited costs to ranchers and delayed federal response; foresters and conservation groups warned the bill risks breaking cooperative agreements and creating legal and safety exposure. The committee sent the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation; one member recorded a no vote.
Senator Mark Harris introduced House Bill 389 to the Senate State Affairs Committee as a tool for the state to respond when fires on federal land threaten Idaho communities and infrastructure.
"The bottom line is the feds are not getting to the fires like our guys do," Harris said, arguing the bill would let the governor authorize immediate state suppression and allow the attorney general to pursue civil cost recovery for suppression expenses. He also said the proposal would extend certain statutes of limitation for pursuing cost recovery.
The bill drew sharply divided testimony. Retired Forest Service and BLM officer Steve Ellis testified that unilateral state action could undermine firefighter safety and damage long-standing cooperative agreements: "House Bill 389, honestly, it's not a trust builder, and it's not conducive to firefighter safety," he said, warning that sending state resources onto federal land without consent could have tragic consequences.
Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League said Idaho's 2023 Idaho Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management Agreement conditions reimbursement on requests for assistance and cautioned that HB 389 could increase the state's liability. "This bill has the potential to really increase liability to the state," Oppenheimer said, urging the committee to seek agency input and consider amendments to ensure actions remain "consistent with the laws and regulations." He and other witnesses recommended engaging federal partners rather than adopting unilateral authority.
Supporters included Dexton Lake of the Idaho Farm Bureau, who recounted ranchers' losses in recent large fires and said the bill is a step toward recovering compensation and protecting livelihoods. "There's a cost to this and so I think this is an appropriate step for us to at least try to recover some of the compensation," he told the committee.
Senators also focused on the bill's fiscal-note and practical implications. Senator Rockey asked how the attorney general could be successful in cost-recovery suits when a master agreement already sets responsibilities and reimbursement processes; witnesses said the question needed legal review and pointed to past Attorney General opinions on similar proposals.
After extended testimony and questioning, Senator Shippey moved to send House Bill 389 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The motion passed; the committee recorded at least one no vote and forwarded the bill to the full Senate.
