Bill Description: House Bill 384 would grow government by creating an Idaho Wildfire Risk Mitigation Fund to subsidize wildfire mitigation efforts of property owners.
Rating: -3
NOTE: House Bill 384 is related to and likely a replacement for 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 384 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, distribute "funding to mitigate wildfire risk" in the form of "grants, matching programs, and educational efforts."
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 mean to "assist homeowners and property owners in protecting their homes and property against wildfire risks and to reduce or mitigate wildfire risk to property owners, thereby reducing costs of property insurance, reducing or mitigating community-level wildfire risks, and assisting in attracting and retaining 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?
The bill calls for providing "grants to citizens or communities for wildfire risk mitigation." These grants would necessarily benefit some property owners at other people's expense.
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 three funding sources for the Idaho wildfire risk mitigation fund. These include the following:
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 hundred thirteen million dollars ($113,000,000), 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)
