HRES-1308-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
What it does
This resolution would designate May 2026 as "National Wildfire Preparedness Month." It expresses the House of Representatives' support for increased public awareness of wildfire risks and encourages preparedness efforts at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels, as well as by nongovernmental organizations. It also supports educational initiatives on preventative measures such as home hardening, land management, early warning systems, and evacuation planning. The resolution carries no binding legal force, creates no new programs, and appropriates no funds.
Who benefits
Residents in wildfire-prone regions — particularly in the Western U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories — who may gain access to increased public awareness campaigns. Emergency management agencies and first responders who benefit from better-prepared communities. Nongovernmental organizations focused on disaster preparedness that may receive increased public attention. Firefighters and their families, who face elevated cancer and respiratory disease risks, may benefit from heightened public recognition of those hazards. Insurance companies and property owners in high-risk areas may indirectly benefit from reduced ignition and damage rates if awareness efforts are effective.
Who is hurt
No group faces a direct legal or financial burden from this resolution, as it is purely symbolic and advisory. Indirectly, critics who view commemorative resolutions as a substitute for substantive policy action may argue that passage displaces legislative attention from binding wildfire legislation. There are no direct cost-bearers identified in the bill text.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that wildfire risk has grown dramatically — the bill cites 24,066 wildfires and 1.85 million acres burned in just the first four months of 2026, running 50% and 94% above the prior 10-year averages, respectively. They contend that a nationally designated awareness month can drive community-level behavioral changes, such as home hardening and evacuation planning, that reduce the human-caused ignitions responsible for nearly 85% of U.S. wildfires. They further argue that even modest reductions in ignitions and property losses would be meaningful given that federal suppression costs alone exceed $3 billion annually.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a symbolic resolution with no funding, no mandates, and no enforcement mechanism does little to address the scale of the wildfire crisis it describes. They contend that the billions of dollars in annual suppression costs and the accelerating pace of destruction cited in the bill's own findings demand binding legislation — on forest management, land use, or firefighter resources — rather than a commemorative designation. They may further argue that passing resolutions of this kind can create the appearance of congressional action while deferring the harder policy choices needed to materially reduce wildfire risk.