Oregon House Bill HB4056

Oregon 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/2/26
• Failed: 3/6/26

Caption

Appropriates moneys to the State Forestry Department to offset landowners' costs of fire protection provided by the department.

Summary

House Bill 4056 appropriates $9 million from the General Fund to the Oregon State Forestry Department for the biennium ending June 30, 2027. The money is intended to offset potential increases in landowner forest patrol assessments, which are charges associated with fire protection services provided by the department to forest landowners. The measure is narrowly focused on funding and does not change the underlying fire protection program or assessment structure. It is an emergency bill, meaning it would take effect immediately upon passage rather than waiting for the normal effective date. The bill is framed as a response to rising fire protection costs and the financial burden those costs may place on landowners.

Impact

HB 4056 would add a one-time General Fund appropriation of $9 million to the State Forestry Department and could reduce or stabilize forest patrol assessment increases for affected landowners. It would not amend the statutes governing fire protection assessments, but it would affect how much landowners pay for state-provided forest fire protection services during the 2025-27 biennium. The emergency clause would make the funding available immediately if enacted.

Sentiment

The available bill text and context suggest a generally supportive, practical approach to helping landowners manage fire protection costs. The measure has multiple sponsors, indicating some level of legislative backing, but there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials to show broader support or opposition. Because the bill was still in committee upon adjournment, its final disposition appears to have been unresolved rather than contested on the record.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill itself, would likely include the use of General Fund dollars for a targeted subsidy, the size of the appropriation, and whether state funding should be used to offset costs that otherwise fall on forest landowners. Any disagreement would likely center on fiscal priorities and the fairness of shifting fire protection costs from landowners to the state.