Relating to a limitation on liability for prescribed burning conducted on agricultural or conservation land.
Impact
The bill amends existing statutes in the Natural Resources Code, particularly Section 153.081, clarifying conditions under which liability is limited. To qualify for this limited liability, the prescribed burn manager must maintain liability insurance covering at least $1 million per occurrence, ensuring that a financial safety net is in place in case of damages. This change is designed to make prescribed burning a more viable option for land management in Texas, potentially leading to better land utilization and ecological benefits.
Summary
SB764 is a legislative bill aimed at limiting the liability of owners, lessees, or occupants of agricultural or conservation land regarding property damage or personal injury caused during prescribed burning activities. The bill specifies that as long as prescribed burning is conducted under the supervision of a certified and insured burn manager, those overseeing the land will not be held liable for damages related to the burn. This provision seeks to encourage prescribed burning practices, which are often used for land management, by alleviating some of the risks landowners face regarding legal consequences.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding SB764 may arise from the balance between supporting agricultural practices and protecting public safety. Some stakeholders might argue that while limiting liability for prescribed burns could encourage responsible land management, it also poses risks, particularly in areas where burns could inadvertently lead to uncontrolled fires. On the other hand, supporters of the bill argue that the benefits of prescribed burns, including fire prevention and habitat management, far outweigh potential risks, advocating for the necessity of the bill to facilitate agricultural practices.
Voting_history
SB764 received strong support during its voting history, marked by a significant majority in favor, with 143 votes in support and none opposing during the third reading in the House on May 10, 2013. This reflects a statewide recognition of the importance of sustainable land management practices and the legislative commitment to backing such initiatives.
Relating to certain criminal conduct involving agricultural land, including the justified use of force or deadly force to protect agricultural land from that conduct, and to civil liability arising out of certain justified threats to use force or deadly force; creating a criminal offense.