HB 3944 is a wildfire-focused bill that substantially revises Oregon’s existing wildfire hazard, defensible space, and wildland-urban interface framework. It repeals several 2021-era provisions tied to the statewide wildfire hazard map, building code standards for wildfire mitigation, defensible space requirements, and fire protection rules for lands outside forest protection districts. In their place, the bill directs the State Fire Marshal to create a model defensible space code for local governments, with standards no more stringent than the 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code and informed by Oregon-specific best practices. It also keeps a community risk reduction program centered on wildfire education, response planning, and preparedness, and requires priority use of state assistance for vulnerable communities, critical infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and senior-serving facilities.
The bill also makes broader changes to wildfire and land-use policy. It redefines “wildland-urban interface” in statute, updates wildfire risk reduction and forest resilience programs, and revises the duties of the State Forestry Department and the Wildfire Programs Advisory Council. The forestry provisions emphasize landscape-scale fuel reduction, restoration, collaboration with local and federal partners, and protection of homes, infrastructure, watersheds, and habitat. The bill also amends land-use and property-related statutes, including provisions affecting rural accessory dwelling units, replacement dwellings, county economic opportunity sites, and seller disclosure forms, to remove references to the repealed wildfire hazard map and prior defensible-space requirements.
A major legal effect of HB 3944 is the voiding of prior wildfire hazard zone assignments made under the 2023 version of ORS 477.490. The bill directs the State Forestry Department to withdraw and reverse those orders within 30 days after the act takes effect. It also repeals the statewide wildfire hazard map and related statutory provisions, which would eliminate a central regulatory tool used in earlier wildfire planning and code enforcement. Because the bill declares an emergency, it would take effect immediately upon passage rather than waiting for the usual effective date.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears mixed but favorable enough to advance the bill out of committee. The House committee vote was 10-2 to refer the measure to Rules without recommendation, suggesting significant support for moving the bill forward while also indicating unresolved concerns. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed public testimony or sponsor explanations, but the structure of the bill suggests it is intended to replace a more prescriptive statewide wildfire hazard regime with a more locally flexible, code-based approach.
The main points of contention likely center on the repeal of the wildfire hazard map and the rollback of statewide defensible-space and building-code mandates. Supporters may view the bill as reducing regulatory burdens, improving local control, and aligning standards with national code guidance. Opponents may be concerned that eliminating the hazard map and prior state requirements weakens wildfire risk reduction, reduces consistency across jurisdictions, and removes protections that were designed to address growing wildfire danger. The bill’s emphasis on local discretion, property disclosure changes, and the voiding of prior hazard-zone orders suggests that landowners, counties, fire agencies, environmental interests, and housing or development interests may have differing views on its effects.
HB 3944 would repeal multiple wildfire-related statutes and sections of prior law, including provisions tied to the statewide wildfire hazard map, state-established defensible space requirements, and certain fire protection rules for lands outside forest protection districts. It would amend several statutes in the land-use, property disclosure, forestry, and fire protection codes to remove references to the repealed hazard-map system and replace them with a model-code and local-option framework for defensible space and wildfire risk reduction. The bill would also require the State Forestry Department to void prior wildfire hazard zone assignments and reverse those orders, immediately changing the legal status of properties previously designated under the 2023 hazard map.
The available vote history suggests the bill had enough support to move forward, but not unanimous backing. A 10-2 committee vote to send the measure to Rules without recommendation indicates a generally favorable or at least pragmatic sentiment among a majority of committee members, while the dissent shows meaningful reservations. With no transcript available, the broader discussion can only be inferred from the bill’s structure: it appears designed to shift wildfire policy away from statewide mandates and toward local implementation and advisory guidance.
The most notable controversy is the bill’s repeal of the statewide wildfire hazard map and related mandatory building-code and defensible-space provisions. Supporters are likely to argue that these changes reduce regulatory overreach, avoid one-size-fits-all standards, and give local governments more flexibility to tailor wildfire mitigation to local conditions. Critics are likely to argue that removing statewide hazard designations and mandatory standards could weaken wildfire preparedness, create uneven protections across jurisdictions, and undermine efforts to reduce risk in high-hazard areas. Additional tension may arise from the bill’s effects on property owners, counties, fire agencies, and land-use planning, especially where prior hazard-zone classifications affected development, disclosure, or compliance obligations.