HJM 4009
In CommitteeHouse
Federal wildfire response
Requesting Congress to ensure that federal wildfire response entities have the capacity to protect communities and infrastructure, limit impacts to natural resources and watersheds, and protect wildland firefighter health and safety.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This joint memorial asks the federal government to ensure the new federal wildfire response structure is ready and fully staffed by April 2026, delay further reorganization until fire risk decreases, and avoid cutting firefighting capacity in 2027—due to uncertainty around federal staffing cuts and reorganization plans. It reflects Washington’s concern that federal changes could weaken wildfire readiness ahead of future fire seasons.
- Urges the federal government to ensure the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service (under the Department of Interior) is fully operational and staffed by April 1, 2026, to support a coordinated response before the 2026 wildfire season.
- Calls for a delay in any further federal reorganization—including changes to the U.S. Forest Service—until national wildfire activity drops to Preparedness Level 2 (a defined federal fire activity threshold).
- Recommends that any federal unification of wildfire agencies be done carefully to avoid reducing firefighting capacity in 2027, especially given recent federal workforce reductions (e.g., 5,000 fewer Forest Service employees, 7,500 fewer Department of Interior employees).
- Asks the federal government to prioritize protecting firefighter health and safety, safeguarding communities and infrastructure, and preserving natural resources and watersheds during the consolidation process.
Who is affected
- Washington residents and communities — Washington residents and communities who rely on state and federal wildfire response resources during fire season; they may be affected if federal staffing or coordination is reduced or delayed, potentially increasing risk to homes, property, and lives.
- State wildfire response agencies — State emergency management and firefighting agencies (e.g., Washington State Fire Marshal, Department of Natural Resources) who may need to compensate for federal capacity gaps or coordinate more closely with federal partners under uncertain conditions.
- Federal wildland firefighting personnel — Federal wildland firefighters and support staff, whose roles, staffing levels, and organizational structures may change due to consolidation efforts, potentially affecting readiness and safety.
- Forest and land managers — Forest and land managers (including tribal, state, and private landowners) who depend on coordinated federal wildfire response and forest health programs to reduce fire risk and protect ecosystems.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
If successful, this demand could significantly improve federal response capacity ahead of the 2026 fire season, reducing the likelihood of delayed or insufficient federal aid during critical early-stage wildfire events — directly benefiting rural and wildland-urban interface communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(1) — Urges federal Wildland Fire Service to be fully staffed by April 1, 2026Delaying reorganization during peak fire risk periods could prevent organizational instability during high-impact fire seasons, preserving continuity of command and coordination — especially valuable for small, rural fire districts with limited backup resources.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(2) — Calls for delaying reorganization until fire activity drops to Preparedness Level 2By highlighting documented federal workforce reductions (5,000 Forest Service, 7,500 DOI), the memorial raises awareness of real risks to regional fire readiness — potentially spurring bipartisan federal action or additional state preparedness planning.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(3) — Asks federal government to avoid reducing 2027 firefighting capacityFormalizing these priorities in a joint memorial may influence federal rulemaking and resource allocation during consolidation — especially if Washington’s delegation coordinates with congressional allies to attach similar language to federal appropriations bills.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(4) — Prioritizes firefighter health/safety, community/infrastructure protection, and watershed preservationThe memorial may strengthen interagency coordination by formally documenting state concerns, potentially enabling better alignment between state emergency management and federal incident response teams — though this benefit is indirect and contingent on federal responsiveness.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Overview: 'Reflects Washington’s concern that federal changes could weaken wildfire readiness'
Potential Concerns (5)
The memorial urges federal action to ensure wildfire readiness, but contains no enforceable mechanism or state funding to support that goal — leaving Washington reliant on federal compliance, which is uncertain and historically inconsistent with federal wildfire staffing priorities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(1) — Urges federal Wildland Fire Service to be fully staffed by April 1, 2026Delaying reorganization until fire activity declines creates a reactive, not proactive, policy framework — meaning Washington must wait for worsening fire conditions before acting, increasing risk during high-risk windows (e.g., July–September).
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(2) — Calls for delaying reorganization until fire activity drops to Preparedness Level 2The memorial expresses concern about federal workforce cuts but does not propose state-level mitigation (e.g., hiring, equipment investment), leaving Washington vulnerable if federal staffing shortfalls materialize as projected.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(3) — Asks federal government to avoid reducing 2027 firefighting capacityWhile the memorial claims no state fiscal impact, it implicitly shifts financial risk to the state: if federal capacity declines, Washington may be forced to spend state funds to compensate — e.g., hiring additional state firefighters or deploying state resources to fill federal gaps — without statutory authority or budgetary planning.
FinancialPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact: 'No direct fiscal impact on the state budget'The memorial emphasizes outcomes (e.g., firefighter safety, infrastructure protection) but offers no state-level accountability or implementation plan — making success dependent on federal cooperation, which has historically lagged in Washington’s favor during wildfire crises.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 1(4) — Prioritizes firefighter health/safety, community/infrastructure protection, and watershed preservation
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and wildland-urban interface communities face the highest direct risk from wildfire due to limited local fire response capacity; if federal support falters, they are most likely to experience delayed responses, property loss, and life safety threats.
State and local fire agencies (e.g., WAFM, DNR) may benefit from federal coordination improvements but face increased burden if federal capacity declines — requiring them to fill gaps without corresponding budget increases.
Federal firefighters face job instability and reorganization uncertainty; if consolidation reduces staffing or benefits, this group may experience increased workloads, lower morale, and higher attrition — especially if Washington’s demand for full staffing goes unmet.
Tribal and private forest managers rely on federal fire response and forest health programs; delays or reductions in federal capacity could increase fuel loads and fire severity, threatening ecosystem resilience and long-term forest health.
Local governments (counties, fire districts) in high-risk areas may be forced to divert local funds to supplement federal capacity — straining already-tight budgets and potentially reducing investment in prevention (e.g., fuel reduction, community education).