Adds to existing law to provide for certain voluntary noncompliance and acceptance of risks.
Summary
House Bill 97 amends Idaho’s Disaster Preparedness Act to expressly allow a person to refuse to evacuate even when ordered or compelled to do so under state law. The bill states that a person who makes that choice assumes all risks and liabilities associated with remaining behind.
The bill also requires reimbursement to a governmental entity, or to a nonprofit agency working with a governmental entity, if that entity later conducts a rescue for someone who voluntarily declined to evacuate after an order was issued. The measure is set to take effect July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to Chapter 10, Title 46 of the Idaho Code, creating a specific statutory rule for voluntary noncompliance with evacuation orders. It does not eliminate evacuation authority, but it changes the legal consequences for individuals who refuse to leave by assigning risk and liability to them and authorizing cost recovery for rescue operations. The affected parties include residents subject to evacuation orders, state and local emergency managers, and nonprofit rescue organizations assisting government responders.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests broad support for the measure, with strong bipartisan margins in both chambers: 63-5 in the House and 31-4 in the Senate. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate detailed arguments, but the vote totals imply the bill was generally viewed favorably by most legislators. The emergency clause and effective date also suggest a sense of urgency around clarifying evacuation-related responsibilities.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between personal autonomy and public safety. Supporters appear to favor the bill’s recognition that individuals may choose to stay in place and should bear the consequences of that decision, including rescue costs. Potential critics would likely focus on whether the reimbursement requirement could be burdensome or whether allowing voluntary noncompliance could complicate emergency response and put first responders at greater risk. The narrow opposition in both chambers indicates some disagreement, but not enough to prevent passage.