SSB 5491
In CommitteeSenate
Prescribed fire claims
Establishing a prescribed fire claims fund pilot program.
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 bill establishes a pilot program to reimburse certain losses caused by escaped prescribed or cultural burns—when those burns are conducted properly under approved plans—aimed at reducing financial barriers to using this important fire management tool. It creates a new claims fund, sets eligibility rules, caps payouts at $2 million per claim, and expires in 2033.
- Creates a prescribed fire claims fund pilot program to provide financial reimbursement for losses (e.g., property damage, economic loss, or suppression costs) resulting from escaped prescribed or cultural burns that were conducted properly.
- Eligibility requires the burn to be conducted by a certified burn manager or cultural fire practitioner, under an approved plan and with required permits—burns involving criminal or negligent acts are excluded.
- Reimbursement is capped at $2 million per claim, and total payouts are limited to funds available in the new account; no automatic right to reimbursement is created.
- The Office of Risk Management and Department of Natural Resources will jointly develop program guidelines, claim submission procedures, and priority rules if claims exceed available funds.
- The program is temporary and expires June 30, 2033, with remaining funds going to the Natural Climate Solutions Account after expiration.
- Allows claimants to pursue other legal remedies, but courts must reduce any court-awarded damages by the amount already received from the claims fund.
Who is affected
- Nonpublic entities conducting prescribed or cultural burns — Private landowners, tribal cultural fire practitioners, certified burn managers, and other nonpublic entities conducting or facilitating prescribed or cultural burns may be reimbursed for losses if a burn escapes and causes damage, provided the burn was conducted properly and meets eligibility criteria.
- Washington Department of Natural Resources — The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may be reimbursed for suppression costs or payments it incurs due to an escaped prescribed or cultural burn that met all legal and plan requirements.
- State agencies — State agencies may be assessed to help fund the program through the Risk Management Administration Account, and they may also benefit from reduced liability exposure for their own burn operations.
- General public and natural resources — Communities and ecosystems across Washington—especially in eastern Washington—may benefit long-term from increased use of prescribed fire to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By reducing liability fears, the program directly encourages more prescribed and cultural burns—proven to reduce fuel loads and prevent catastrophic wildfires—thereby lowering the risk of destructive fires to homes, infrastructure, and lives, especially in eastern Washington where fire risk is highest.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)The program supports cultural fire practitioners and private landowners conducting burns, enabling more widespread use of low-risk fire tools and potentially creating new jobs in prescribed fire services, certification, and ecological monitoring—especially beneficial for tribal communities and rural economies.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a) & Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii)Increased use of prescribed and cultural burns improves forest and rangeland health by reducing hazardous fuels, promoting native plant regeneration, and enhancing wildlife habitat—contributing to long-term climate resilience and ecosystem stability across Washington.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b) & Sec. 2(2)(a)(i)Allowing claimants to pursue other legal remedies—while requiring offset for fund reimbursements—preserves due process rights and ensures claimants are not barred from seeking full redress, balancing accountability with program participation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6)Sunsetting the program in 2033 and redirecting remaining funds to the Natural Climate Solutions Account ensures long-term alignment with climate resilience goals and prevents permanent budgetary commitments without periodic legislative review.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The $2 million per-claim cap and funding subject to annual appropriations creates uncertainty and potential denial of full reimbursement—even for legitimate claims—especially for high-value properties or complex economic losses, discouraging participation despite the program’s intent.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)Funding comes from the Risk Management Administration Account, which relies on assessments from state agencies; this creates indirect budgetary pressure on agencies that may divert resources from other public services, potentially affecting public education, transportation, or healthcare funding over time.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7)(a) & Sec. 3(2)(c)Excluding claims arising from “criminal or negligent acts” creates ambiguity—determining whether a burn was “properly conducted” may hinge on subjective interpretations of intent or negligence, potentially denying reimbursement to claimants in gray-area cases where liability is contested but not clearly criminal.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)The prohibition on creating an “entitlement to reimbursement” and the requirement that courts offset damages by prior fund receipts disincentivizes claimants from pursuing legal remedies, effectively limiting access to full redress—particularly harmful for low-income or under-resourced landowners without legal support.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4) & Sec. 2(6)While the program includes “companies, contractors, and operators,” the requirement for certified burn managers or approved plans disproportionately favors larger, well-resourced entities with access to certification, training, and legal compliance infrastructure—small landowners and independent cultural practitioners may lack the capacity to navigate the process, limiting equitable access.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a) & Sec. 2(2)(a)(ii)
Who Is Most Affected
Private landowners—especially those with high-value timber or rangeland—may benefit significantly from liability protection and reimbursement, but only if they can afford certification, insurance, and compliance costs; small-scale owners may find the process burdensome.
Tribal cultural fire practitioners are explicitly included and may gain critical support for restoring traditional fire practices—reducing barriers to cultural stewardship and enhancing tribal sovereignty over land management.
State agencies (e.g., DNR) benefit from reduced liability exposure and potential reimbursement for suppression costs, but may face increased administrative burdens and indirect budgetary pressure through assessments.
Fire-prone communities in eastern Washington stand to benefit from reduced wildfire risk due to increased prescribed burning—lowering property damage, health impacts from smoke, and emergency response costs.
Certified burn managers and fire service contractors may see increased demand for their services, but must invest in training and compliance to qualify—potentially consolidating the market toward larger, well-capitalized firms.