What Texas lawmakers did after the state's largest wildfire
The legislation includes a study on wildfire risk zones, increasing funding for rural volunteer fire departments, and creating a statewide inventory of firefighting equipment that is accessible to all fire departments in Texas.
The legislative package was inspired by the state's largest wildfire in history. The Smokehouse Creek fire scorched more than 1 million acres in the Panhandle and killed three people. A special House committee was formed following the fires to investigate the cause and make legislative recommendations.
Senate Bill 34, filed by state Sen. Kevin Sparks, R-Midland, is the most sweeping proposal. It includes a study on fuel loads, which is material that is likely to catch fire in a specific area, such as dry grass or vegetation. The study would also establish wildfire risk zones for residents, homes and businesses. The bill also creates a statewide database of firefighting equipment and increases funding to volunteer fire departments in areas at high risk for large wildfires.
Rep. Ken King, a Republican who lives in Canadian where much of the damage from the wildfires took place, co-sponsored the bill. King led the House committee that investigated the fires and later released a detailed report about the disaster.
'We took a lot of testimony, and a lot of work went on to do what's right for our volunteer firefighters,' King said. 'Senate Bill 34 combines several volunteer firefighter priorities.'
The bill requires that at least 10% of the money in the Rural Volunteer Fire Department Assistance program go to volunteer fire departments in areas at high risk for large wildfires. Texas A&M Forest Service and West Texas A&M University will launch a study to determine wildfire risk zones based on fuel loads of flammable material like vegetation.
Most of the wildfires that burned through the Panhandle started when power lines came into contact with dry vegetation. The Smokehouse Creek fire started when a rotten utility pole snapped and the power lines landed on dry grass.
The bill requires that researchers consider several factors when determining these risk zones, including the projected loss of life, property and natural resources should a wildfire occur in the zone and the financial impact of costs associated with recovering after a wildfire. This study is due by Dec. 1, 2026, and would be submitted to the governor, lieutenant governor, and the Legislature.
'Constant wildfire threats that require preparation, coordination, and resources is the most pressing issue for the Panhandle,' Sparks said in a previous statement.
Another recommendation from the House committee report was the statewide inventory of firefighting equipment that is available during a wildfire. According to the report, there was an uncoordinated response between responding agencies during the Panhandle fires, and a lack of knowledge about what equipment agencies had and what was needed.
Texas A&M Forest Service, the state agency that manages Texas' forests and natural resources, will operate and maintain the database. Fire departments will be able to see equipment descriptions, search by location and equipment types, and have contact information for fire departments listed in the database. Volunteer stations will also have access to the inventory.
One of King's bills also addresses what he and other lawmakers have deemed a regulatory 'no man's land,' as state agencies lacked the authority to inspect power lines at oilfield well sites and facilities. Lawmakers identified this as a problem after the investigative committee concluded that unmaintained electrical lines for oilfield equipment started the Smokehouse Creek Fire and others in that same week. Data from the Forest Service shows power lines have caused roughly 60% of fires throughout the Panhandle since 2006.
Under King's bill, the Railroad Commission, which oversees the oil and gas industry, will notify the Public Utility Commission when it identifies substandard power lines at well sites or at other facilities used for oil and gas production. The notification must include a description of the condition and whether the well is abandoned. The Railroad Commission must also notify the landowner.
The two agencies will then work together to request that a state fire marshal or local authority to inspect the site, and request that the electric service provider disconnect service.
While the Legislature made a lot of progress toward improving the state's response to wildfires, one bill that failed to pass would have created a statewide network to connect all first responders and state agencies.
House Bill 13, by King, sought to create the Texas Interoperability Council, which would be tasked with the implementation of a statewide plan for emergency communication use. The proposal was praised by first responders during the legislative process. Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd testified to lawmakers in March that it was the 'boldest move' he's seen in his career.
That bill passed the House in April, but was not taken up by the Senate.
Disclosure: Texas A&M University and West Texas A&M University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Democrats wage national redistricting war, Republicans may have the upper hand
WASHINGTON — As California legislators begin the process of reconfiguring its congressional districts and creating a more Democratic-friendly map in next year's midterms, the party could be pushing itself into a national redistricting war — and one that would likely hold them at a disadvantage. The California Legislature will work to pass its proposed version of the state's congressional map this week, which would give Democrats an advantage in five additional House seats in the state. After that, the revised map will be on the ballot in November when California voters participate in a special election for municipal races. That means Democrats' attempt to thwart Republican redistricting efforts in other states, namely Texas, where President Donald Trump is pushing for Republicans to draw more GOP-friendly districts, will come down to whether California leaders can convince enough voters to support the gambit. And that may be easier said than done. Even if California is successful and counteracts the five seats Republicans say they'll flip in the Lone Star State, it could ignite efforts in other states to redraw their maps for partisan leverage. Doing so would be an easier fight for Republican-led states than those led by Democrats, largely because of the laws put in place by party leaders to avoid this exact situation. Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans in redrawing maps As state leaders threaten a redraw of their maps, Republicans have an advantage over their Democratic counterparts due to local laws impeding partisan gerrymandering attempts. Most redistricting efforts are completed through state legislatures and more easily accomplished in states with single-party control, meaning one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion. In that category, Republicans have the trifecta advantage: There are 26 states under complete GOP control compared to just 15 under complete Democratic control. Once you factor out the states that don't have split congressional representation — for example, Utah, which only has Republican seats so a map redraw wouldn't do anything to change the calculus — you are down to 15 red states and eight blue states with seats available to flip. Even then, at least four of those Democratic-led states require independent commissions (or some hybrid system with state legislators) to change congressional maps in the middle of the decade. That complicates their efforts while the Republican states would only require their legislatures to do the heavy lifting. 'Even if (Democrats) are hell bent on doing this, I don't think it's going to be a very easy thing for them to do as a matter of their various state laws,' John Malcom, the vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Deseret News in an interview. 'It's not going to be easy for them to do, and they have less room to maneuver because they've already done a remarkably effective job of redistricting (some states) in a way that … dilutes Republican votes.' California gambles with those obstacles in place Unlike a majority of states, California hands the power of map-drawing not to state legislators but instead to an independent redistricting commission that is meant to draw nonpartisan boundaries based purely on population data. The commission was first enacted in 2010 and is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and four voters who are not affiliated with either of the major parties. California is mandated by its state constitution to utilize the commission only once a decade, and it already did so in 2021. In order to work around this, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last week he would introduce a constitutional amendment circumventing those laws. The catch: California voters, who largely support the independent commission, have to approve throwing away the panel's nonpartisan maps until after the census is taken again in 2030 and new maps are drawn for the 2032 election cycle. A recent Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab survey found 64% of voters support keeping the independent commission, compared to just 36% who said state lawmakers should draw the maps. But some members of the commission who drew the current boundaries support throwing out the map, with the agreement that the panel will be reinstated later. But even with that endorsement, Republicans plan to fight back with accusations that Democrats are defying the will of the voters. 'I think that it will be seen as a negatively partisan thing if they try to go back on what the voters only recently approved,' Malcolm told the Deseret News. 'But you know, Gavin Newsom is making it very clear that the lane he wants to run for president in is the 'I'm the anti-Trump guy.' And so being nakedly partisan is not something that Gavin Newsom is going to shy away from.' Still, Democrats could have some luck as nearly half of the state's voters belong to the party compared to just 24.7% who are registered Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Another 21.9% identify as independents. California and Texas could set off firestorm in other states With Texas expected to approve its new map as early as this week and California moving full steam ahead on its proposal this fall, the boundary battle could elevate to an all-out war encompassing several states across the country. More than half a dozen states are publicly considering changes to their congressional maps next November in an attempt to gain leverage — especially as it becomes likely California will simply neutralize Texas and neither party will benefit. Democrats in New York have openly suggested they would look at ways to change congressional maps to squeeze out GOP lawmakers in vulnerable districts while Florida Republicans are considering the opposite in the Sunshine State. But other states are slowly entering the conversation, such as Indiana, where Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage to Democrats. All seven of those House Republicans came out in support of redrawing the map on Monday after President Donald Trump began looking to the state as another opportunity to secure his majority. 'Now, with President Trump and the entire Hoosier Republican Congressional delegation expressing support for Congressional redistricting, the General Assembly should act swiftly to get the job done,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman, the first Indiana Republican to announce his support, said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'Hoosiers deserve Congressional districts that ensure voting records are reflected accurately in their Congressional districts.' Despite uphill battle, Democrats say they can't give up Although Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans, the redistricting battle is emerging as a war they must wage, strategists say — lest they risk an unenthusiastic base that has already expressed frustration the minority doesn't do enough to thwart Trump's agenda. 'The way I look at it, you have to fight fire with fire,' Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist based in Washington, D.C., told the Deseret News. 'You just can't let the Republicans gerrymander their way to a House majority that they're going to have difficulty protecting.' Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. As a result, Trump is pressing state Republican leaders to deliver additional seats through redistricting — which some strategists say is a sign of political desperation and should motivate Democrats not to let up. 'Democrats have an opportunity to take back the House, and it won't stop the abuses in the Trump regime, but it will slow them down,' Bannon said. 'Democrats will have the opportunity to call hearings and investigations into the Trump administration, and I don't think we can afford to let that opportunity go by. So I think Democrats should go full steam ahead.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
