Bill Description: House Bill 619 would grow government by creating an Idaho Wildfire Risk Mitigation Fund to subsidize wildfire mitigation efforts.
Rating: -3
NOTE: House Bill 619 is related to House Bill 384 (2025) and House Bill 17 (2025).
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 619 would add several new sections to Chapter 24, Title 41, Idaho Code, titled the “Idaho Wildfire Risk Mitigation Fund Act.” This act would create a wildfire risk mitigation fund in the state treasury, which would, among other things, provide “grants to Idaho citizens for wildfire risk mitigation” and provide “funding for property protection and for fire prevention and mitigation education and resources.”
The bill would give the director of the department of insurance authority to oversee the fund and “promulgate rules” and establish “policies and procedures” to accomplish the goals laid out in the act. The bill also says, “The director of the department of insurance may appoint an advisory committee to assist in operation of the fund.”
The bill's intent language says the Legislature intends to encourage and assist property owners in “protecting their property against wildfire risks and mitigating wildfire risks to property owners and their insurance companies.” It claims these efforts will help to attract and retain insurers in the property marketplace.
While these may sound like noble ambitions, they are not within the proper role of government, and this act would be a notable increase in government's size, scope, and spending.
(-1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
Among other purposes, the fund created by this act would be used for “distributing grants” of up to $20,000 each to “mitigate wildfire risk.”
The choice to purchase and develop property in an area that has an elevated risk of natural disasters such as fires, floods, or hurricanes is a calculated risk. Individuals and businesses alike need to account for those risks and take steps to mitigate them by purchasing more expensive and comprehensive insurance or by taking other measures.
When government starts handing out money to mitigate risk, it's redistribution. This act has a secondary effect of manipulating the market. Once people begin to expect government subsidies and grants, they adjust their market decisions accordingly.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
The bill lists several funding sources for the Idaho wildfire risk mitigation fund including “the continuous appropriation of excess premium tax authorized pursuant to section 41-406(1)(e), Idaho Code; any excess and unused moneys received for fees, licenses, or miscellaneous charges collected by the department, not to exceed the department's annual appropriation; any excess stamping fees, as determined and recommended by the surplus line association or other delegated contracted organization and as approved by the director; private sector contributions; grants or other contributions for fire prevention or mitigation; and such other moneys that may be provided by legislative appropriation.”
The bill would amend Section 41-406, Idaho Code, which deals with, among other things, the premium tax referenced above. Idaho law as modified by this bill would say that if, after certain required deductions, "the premium tax remaining” exceeds one $125 million, “one-fourth (1/4) of such excess is hereby appropriated and shall be paid to the wildfire risk mitigation fund established in chapter 24, title 41, Idaho Code.”
This would direct tax dollars to the government redistribution called for in this bill.
It should also be recognized that most of the “grants or other contributions” referenced in the list of funding sources come from the federal government, which raises additional concerns about increasing Idaho's dependency on debt-financed federal funding.
It's worth remembering that with very few exceptions, any money government spends or appropriates is taken from the people, either directly or indirectly, through taxes, fees, debt, or other assessments. Whenever a new government program comes along, the people end up funding it one way or another.
(-1)
