Nevada Assembly Bill AB561

Nevada 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/14/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/20/25
• Engrossed: 5/22/25
• Refer: 5/22/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Enrolled: 5/29/25
• Chaptered: 6/6/25
• Passed: 6/6/25

Caption

Makes a supplemental appropriation to the Division of Forestry of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for an unanticipated shortfall related to firefighting costs. (BDR S-1176)

Summary

AB 561 makes a one-time supplemental appropriation from the State General Fund to the Nevada Division of Forestry in the amount of $20,733,824. The money is intended to cover an unanticipated shortfall tied to firefighting costs, and the appropriation is in addition to funding previously provided in the 2023 session law. The bill is an emergency-style fiscal measure focused on restoring the division’s ability to pay for wildfire suppression and related operational expenses. The bill does not create a new program or change regulatory policy; instead, it adjusts state spending to address a budget gap in an existing agency. By appropriating additional general fund dollars, it directly affects the Division of Forestry within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and supports the state’s firefighting and wildfire response capacity. The act becomes effective upon passage and approval, reflecting the need for immediate funding availability.

Impact

AB 561 amends state finances by adding a supplemental General Fund appropriation for wildfire suppression expenses, increasing resources available to the Division of Forestry beyond the amount previously enacted in chapter 209, Statutes of Nevada 2023. It affects the state budget and the Division of Forestry’s ability to meet firefighting obligations, but it does not alter substantive statutes governing forestry, fire management, or emergency response.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Assembly 42-0 and the Senate 20-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The lack of recorded committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was treated as a straightforward funding fix rather than a contested policy proposal.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The only likely point of concern would be the size of the supplemental appropriation and its use of General Fund dollars to cover an unanticipated shortfall, but no recorded debate or dissent identifies any member or stakeholder objecting on that basis. The bill’s unanimous votes suggest consensus that the firefighting costs needed to be covered promptly.