An Act Concerning Certain Authorities Related To The Prevention Of Wildfires.
HB 5152 revises Connecticut’s wildfire-prevention and open-burning laws. It expands and clarifies when brush may be burned on residential property and at municipal landfills, transfer stations, and recycling centers, while preserving existing limits tied to air quality, health hazards, municipal bans, and high fire-danger conditions. The bill also expressly allows open burning for certain public-safety, agricultural, ecological, and disaster-response purposes when permitted by the appropriate official, and it confirms that municipalities retain authority to regulate or prohibit open burning within their borders.
The bill also updates the state’s forest-fire control framework. It strengthens the authority of the State Forest Fire Warden and district fire wardens, including emergency authority during a governor-declared forest-fire emergency, and it revises compensation and billing procedures for wardens, firefighters, labor, and equipment used in fire suppression. Finally, it broadens the Governor’s emergency powers during extreme drought or hazardous conditions to close woodland and brush land and to prohibit open-air fires, while increasing the penalty for violating such a proclamation.
The bill amends General Statutes sections 22a-174(f), 23-36, 23-39, and 23-50, effective October 1, 2026. Its practical effect is to formalize and expand state authority over open burning, wildfire prevention, and emergency fire suppression, while leaving municipal regulatory power intact. It affects residents who burn brush, municipalities operating landfills or recycling facilities, local open-burning officials, fire marshals, forest fire wardens, volunteer fire companies, and property owners in woodland or brush areas subject to emergency restrictions.
The available voting history shows strong committee support: the Environment Committee reported the bill Joint Favorable on a 33-0 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate in the supplied materials. Based on the text and unanimous committee vote, the bill appears to have been viewed as a broadly supported public-safety and wildfire-prevention measure.
No specific objections are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of policy sensitivity include the expanded authority to restrict open burning, the Governor’s power to close woodland and brush land during drought or hazardous conditions, the increased criminal penalty for violating emergency proclamations, and the administrative changes to billing and compensation for fire suppression services. The bill nevertheless preserves municipal discretion to regulate or ban brush burning, which may reduce conflict over state preemption.