AN ACT Relating to a prescribed fire claims fund pilot program;
HB 1563 establishes a prescribed fire claims fund pilot program in Washington. The bill is based on legislative findings that the state is facing a forest health and wildfire crisis, and that prescribed fire and cultural burning are important but underused tools for reducing hazardous fuels, improving forest resilience, and protecting communities. To encourage more use of these practices, the bill creates a state-run pilot program to reimburse certain losses tied to prescribed burns conducted under approved plans and applicable permits.
The program is administered by the Office of Risk Management in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources. It creates a prescribed fire claims fund account in the state treasury and allows reimbursement, subject to available appropriations, for qualifying property or economic losses, reasonable authorized costs, and certain suppression costs when an escape occurs and a third party is liable. The bill also covers some claims involving tribal lands when there is an agreement or tribal approval, and it excludes claims caused by criminal or negligent conduct. The program is temporary and includes expiration dates, reporting/administrative provisions, and a requirement that any unused funds eventually be transferred to the natural climate solutions account.
The bill amends state risk-management and claims-related statutes to add this new funding mechanism and to authorize the state to administer and pay claims connected to prescribed fire. It also specifies that the account may be used only for the pilot program’s claim reimbursements and related administration, and that payments are capped and contingent on funding. If the bill’s specific funding is not provided in the omnibus appropriations act, the act becomes null and void, reflecting its dependence on a dedicated appropriation.
Overall, the sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and only one dissenting vote on final passage in each chamber. The broad support suggests agreement across parties and committees that reducing liability uncertainty could help expand prescribed burning as a wildfire mitigation strategy.
The main point of contention, as reflected in the bill text rather than debate transcripts, is financial and liability-related: the state is taking on some reimbursement risk for losses associated with prescribed burns, while also limiting exposure through eligibility rules, funding caps, and the absence of an entitlement to payment. The bill also draws a boundary around negligence and criminal conduct, and it relies on future appropriations, which may have been important to reassure fiscal and risk-management concerns.
HB 1563 adds a new temporary claims and reimbursement framework to Washington law for prescribed fire and cultural burning. It creates a prescribed fire claims fund pilot program, a dedicated treasury account, and related administrative authority for the Office of Risk Management and the Department of Natural Resources. The bill also amends existing risk-management statutes to allow use of the account for administering the program and paying eligible claims, while limiting payments to available funds and requiring any remaining balance to be transferred to the natural climate solutions account when the section expires.
The bill’s reception was overwhelmingly positive. It advanced through both chambers with strong bipartisan support, including unanimous committee votes in several committees and only one no vote at final passage in each chamber. The voting pattern indicates broad agreement that prescribed fire is a useful wildfire and forest-health tool and that reducing liability uncertainty is a worthwhile state policy response.
The principal concerns are not reflected in floor debate transcripts, but the structure of the bill shows the likely areas of caution: state exposure to claims, the need to limit reimbursement to approved burns and non-negligent conduct, and the bill’s dependence on a specific appropriation. The legislation addresses those concerns by capping payments, making reimbursement discretionary and funding-dependent, excluding negligent or criminal acts, and limiting the pilot to a temporary program. Tribal land coverage is also carefully conditioned on agreements or tribal approval, which suggests sensitivity to jurisdictional and sovereignty issues.