Texas Rep. Sparks Change to Fight Future Fires in the State

Following recent dry hazardous weather which even included a burn ban in parts of West Texas, a lawmaker in the Lone Star State has shown interest in making wildfire response better than ever.

Texas Rep. Extinguishes Risk of Wildfires

Texas State Representative Ken King out of Canadian, TX, filed a fancy bill earlier this month that essentially creates the A-Team of emergency wildfire response. This bill is actually called House Bill 13 and it would create The Texas Interoperability Council.

Rep. King stated that he noticed some MAJOR communication problems during the devastating wildfires in the Texas panhandle in 2024.

How the Texas Wildfire Response Team Would Work

Basically, the Texas Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker of the House would each appoint two members to The Texas Interoperability Council. Then, they would all meet to decide who will take the one ring to Mount Doom in Mordor... wait, wrong group.

But the appointment of two members by each of the big three is true. In fact, those members would serve staggered six-year terms, according to the filings.

One way this would benefit the chain of communication, the Texas Tribune includes, is in cases where multiple agencies respond to the same emergency. They can't always communicate with eachother, so having a state-appointed council who can bridge the gap can help.

Throwing his two-cents in, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd had these words to say:

This council will set up an organization structure to bring in over 50 independent operators of radio systems on to the same place.

Not only would the proposed legislation provide a centralized council for communication during emergencies, but it would also allow first responders to have the necessary odds and ends and equipment to assist in these dire situations.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this is a good idea for wildfire prevention and the stopping of other emergencies by improving communication, or is this too risky to allow state government even more power in life-or-death situations?