An Act Concerning Wildfire Response And Management.
SB 1378 is a wildfire preparedness and response bill. It requires the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to submit a statewide wildfire danger assessment by February 1, 2026, including recommendations on whether state resources should be designated or reallocated to reduce wildfire risk and protect public safety, property, and natural resources. It also directs DEEP to provide training information for professional and volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services personnel on wildfire preparedness and response, and to later recommend further implementation steps.
The bill also revises Connecticut’s forest fire statutes to strengthen the state’s wildfire control framework. It updates the authority of the State Forest Fire Warden to prevent and control forest fires, coordinate with federal and local entities, divide the state into fire districts, appoint district wardens and deputies, and assume direct authority during a governor-declared forest fire emergency. It also modernizes compensation and billing procedures for wardens, firefighters, volunteer fire companies, and related labor and equipment costs, including allowing some flexibility for emergency filing deadlines and authorizing the warden to forgive small debts when collection would cost more than the amount owed.
The bill further expands emergency powers when drought or other hazardous conditions create forest fire danger. It allows the Governor to close woodland and brush land to the public and/or prohibit open-air fires statewide or in designated areas, and it increases the criminal penalty for violating such a proclamation to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to six months in jail. Overall, the measure is aimed at improving prevention, preparedness, and response capacity for wildfire events.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive. The Environment Committee reported the bill favorably, and the recorded vote was unanimous, 33-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement that wildfire risk management and emergency preparedness should be strengthened. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate to suggest organized opposition.
Any likely points of contention would center on the scope of state emergency authority and the increased penalties for violating closure or fire bans, as well as the administrative burden of new reporting, training, and compensation procedures. However, based on the available voting history, those concerns did not prevent unanimous committee approval.
The bill amends Connecticut General Statutes sections 23-36, 23-39, and 23-50 and creates new reporting and training requirements for DEEP. It expands and clarifies the State Forest Fire Warden’s authority, updates compensation and reimbursement rules for fire suppression work, and strengthens the Governor’s power to restrict access to fire-prone lands and prohibit open-air burning during dangerous conditions. The bill affects DEEP, the State Forest Fire Warden, district and deputy fire wardens, volunteer and professional fire departments, EMS personnel, municipalities, and members of the public who enter closed forest lands or ignite outdoor fires.
The available legislative history shows clear support for the bill. The Environment Committee gave it a joint favorable change of reference, and the vote tally was unanimous at 33 yeas and 0 nays. With no committee transcript available, there is no evidence of recorded opposition in the materials provided, suggesting the bill was viewed as a practical public-safety and emergency-management measure.
The main areas where disagreement could arise are the breadth of emergency restrictions on public access to woodland and brush land, the Governor’s authority to ban open-air fires, and the increased criminal penalties for violations. There could also be questions about whether DEEP and the State Forest Fire Warden have sufficient resources to carry out the new assessment, training, and administrative duties, and whether municipalities or volunteer fire companies would face added procedural burdens. The available record, however, does not show active opposition; the committee vote was unanimous.