Amends and adds to existing law to provide that a fire burning out of control on federal land in Idaho is a nuisance and cost recovery actions related to such fires are subject to a statute of limitations after ten years, and to allow the governor to direct state resources to suppress fires on federal land.
House Bill 389 revises Idaho’s laws on uncontrolled forest and range fires and adds a new mechanism for state response to fires on federal land. First, it amends Section 38-107 to reaffirm that any out-of-control fire in Idaho is a public nuisance and to clarify civil liability for the person responsible for starting or allowing the fire. The bill preserves the state’s authority to summarily abate the nuisance by suppressing the fire and to recover suppression costs, while also specifying that civil liability is separate from criminal penalties.
The bill also narrows and defines damages in civil actions involving negligent or unintentional fires. For non-willful fire-causing acts, recoverable damages are limited to suppression costs, economic damages, and either diminution in fair market value or reasonable restoration costs for damaged property. It defines key terms such as economic damages and fair market value, applies existing claims requirements for actions against the state or political subdivisions, and imposes a ten-year statute of limitations for actions brought under the section.
A second major provision creates Section 38-131B, which authorizes the governor, during a declared emergency involving an uncontrolled fire on federal lands that threatens Idaho residents or property, to direct state resources to assist in suppression and to authorize deficiency warrants against the general fund. The state may then seek recovery of those suppression costs through a civil action brought by the attorney general, with recovered funds returned to the general fund.
The bill’s impact is to expand and formalize Idaho’s authority to respond to wildfire emergencies, including on federal lands, while also shaping the scope and timing of civil recovery for fire-related damages. It affects landowners, utilities, insurers, state agencies, political subdivisions, and potentially federal-land fire incidents by clarifying liability, limiting certain damages, and creating a state financing and reimbursement process for emergency suppression efforts.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive, as reflected by the broad bipartisan votes in both chambers: 63-6 in the House and 32-1 in the Senate. The main points of contention are likely the bill’s expansion of state involvement in fires on federal land, the use of state general fund resources through deficiency warrants, and the liability and damages framework for negligent or unintentional fire claims. Even so, the vote totals suggest substantial agreement that the measure addresses wildfire response and cost recovery concerns.
HB 389 amends Idaho Code Section 38-107 and adds new Section 38-131B to expand state wildfire suppression authority and refine civil liability rules for uncontrolled fires. It establishes a ten-year limitations period for civil actions under the fire nuisance statute, limits recoverable damages in negligent or unintentional fire cases, and authorizes the governor to deploy state resources and deficiency warrants to suppress threatening fires on federal lands, with cost recovery directed back to the general fund.
The bill appears to have received broad support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes, passing the House 63-6 and the Senate 32-1. That margin suggests general agreement with the bill’s wildfire-response and cost-recovery goals. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the sentiment is inferred primarily from the strong floor vote margins rather than detailed debate.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s authorization for the governor to commit state resources and general fund-backed deficiency warrants to suppress fires on federal lands, and the liability provisions limiting damages for negligent or unintentional fire-causing acts. Critics could view the measure as expanding state exposure or altering traditional tort remedies, while supporters likely see it as a practical tool for rapid wildfire suppression and clearer cost recovery. The broad vote margins indicate these concerns did not prevent passage, but they remain the most notable policy issues in the bill.