Representative Joel Kretz of Waconda, Washington has introduced several bills in the legislature that would affect wildland firefighting.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources does not agree with all proposals in every bill, but the DNR has worked with Rep. Kretz to craft a bill containing the concepts they can support, according to the Yakima Herald.
That bill is HB 2093. One of the provisions would authorize an individual to enter privately owned or publicly owned land for the purposes of attempting to extinguish a wildland fire, regardless of whether the individual owns the land. The person would also be protected from civil or criminal liability.
There are some caveats, such as, the individual would not be allowed to fight fire with fire, that is, they could not ignite burnouts or backfires. They would also have to believe that suppression measures would extinguish the fire, and they would be required to notify emergency personnel and the landowner prior to entering the land or within a reasonable time.
Another provision of the bill requires the DNR to conduct outreach to provide basic Incident Command System and wildland fire safety training to landowners in possession of firefighting capability to help ensure that any wildland fire suppression actions taken by private landowners on their own land are accomplished safely and in coordination with any related incident command structure.
The DNR would be required to cooperate with federal wildland firefighting agencies to
maximize the efficient use of local resources in close proximity to wildland fire incidents.
There will be two hearings on the legislation this week. On February 17 a public hearing is scheduled in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources at 10:00 AM. On February 19 there will be an executive session in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources at 1:30 PM.
Other pending legislation in Washington state related to wildland fire sponsored by Rep. Krertz:
- HB 1508: Providing permissive authority for counties to assume authority over local forest fire management.
- HB 1677: Giving preference to using the nearest available qualified firefighters upon notification of a forest fire.
- HB 1699: Addressing legal immunity in instances of citizen-initiated wildfire control.
- HB 1237: Providing landowners with necessary tools for the protection of their property from forest fires.
- HB 1509: Giving priority selection to forest fire suppression resource contractors that are located geographically close to fire suppression activities.
Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Dick.
We use local landowners a LOT. Nearly all of the time the landowners or private citizens beat us to the fire. At least out here, they are the “initial” initial attack.
The value of local knowledge cannot be overlooked, however, training can help make them more effective and help keep them safe.
Every spring we hold training in conjunction with the state that is intended just for private citizens and landowners. Comms, safety, fire behavior, ICS, and tactics is covered every spring. It has paid huge dividends.
Nice. Where is this? I think something like that has the potential to say live in the more rural parts of our state (Washington).
North Central Montana.
Sorry for the delay, went to listen to Gordon Graham.
He’s worth the trip EVERY time!
Someone needs to stop now and take a very serious look at these bills. This is a huge disaster waiting to happen. For instance if locals, (I.e. Contractors) local land owners, etc., start running out to every wildfire without one line of communication, lives will be lost. If the landowners that have firefighting skills and training, including ICS (which has already proven itself) they need to be in the area dispatch system WILDCAD program and it will show their availability. The Legislature needs to slow down and learn all the facts before starting to pass legislation. There is a system in place that works 98% of the time.
I believe that using the terms “facts” and “politicians” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. The facts are the “oxy” and the politicians are the “morons”.
State Legislators and County Commissioners: can you spell “Liability”?
When the 1st of these local firefighting folks die on a fire, or property is destroyed (pasture, homes, out-buildings), the ads will be on TV (“Call 1-800-BadWildfire”) and the lawyers and Expert Witnesses will have a great Payday. “So Chief, did your folks meet NWCG or NFPA training/quals/PPE Standards?”. “Who signed off on their Task Books”? “Oh, you don’t know what NWCG, NFPA ot Task Books are?” Too bad, so sad, pay the piper. Gotta love the politicians that like to make points criticizing wildfire suppression efforts, especially those from “Doc Hastings Country” that brought us PL 107-203 after the Thirtymile fire.
Agree these look like an accident waiting to happen.
Zero, a Fire Chief can operate as appropriate to control a fire, this legislation is all aimed at private contractors and citizens/landowners, to the best of my understanding. I haven’t read or researched it completely, but it has both good and bad.
“HB 1677: Giving preference to using the nearest available qualified firefighters upon notification of a forest fire.
…
HB 1509: Giving priority selection to forest fire suppression resource contractors that are located geographically close to fire suppression activities.”
Really??? because management by legislation is always a good thing.
Is it not a common thing for a fire chief to be able to commit resources to put out a fire? Does he have to ask permission in WA first? Are there not MOU’s in place?
As long as the fire is in the Fire District, the fire chief has say. There may be some land within the district that the landowner is paying state for protection and the DNR will be working with the district.
Some of those bills under consideration are straight up gifts for contractors. Treating wildfires like a gold rush or a method to dole out patronage doesn’t strike me as the best fire management tool. HB1677 has the county officials making the list for fire outfits eligible for suppression duties in their counties which state DNR must use to hire contractors. The guidelines for the County Commissioners making these lists are pretty vague and basically boil down to personal judgement. Looks like a good way for a friend of a Commissioner to get some lucrative tanker contracts.