Loading policy item
HB 4056
This proposal did not become law. The bill appropriates $9 million from the General Fund to the State Forestry Department for the 2025–2027 biennium to subsidize landowner forest patrol assessments, effectively shielding private property owners from potential fee increases. It would have taken effect immediately upon passage without a sunset provision, performance metric, or dedicated revenue source.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The bill appropriates $9 million from the General Fund to the State Forestry Department for the 2025–2027 biennium to subsidize landowner forest patrol assessments, effectively shielding private property owners from potential fee increases. It would have taken effect immediately upon passage without a sunset provision, performance metric, or dedicated revenue source.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
Legislators anticipate rising wildfire management or patrol costs that could financially burden private landowners, prompting a rapid fiscal intervention to stabilize property-level expenses before demand materializes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Eligible for direct financial offsets against forest patrol assessments, reducing out-of-pocket costs and potentially altering land management or timber harvesting decisions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Receives dedicated funding to administer the offset program but would have had to establish eligibility verification and distribution mechanisms without explicit statutory guidance or audit requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Bear the direct $9 million fiscal burden with no dedicated revenue stream, repayment mechanism, or sunset clause specified.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Landowners might have faced reduced financial barriers to forest management, though full cost coverage could have inadvertentlied reduce incentives for proactive stewardship.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The department would have had to rapidly develop administrative procedures to process claims and track fund exhaustion.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Immediate effectiveness bypasses standard budget review periods, compressing implementation timelines and increasing administrative risk.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: No mechanism is established for reporting unspent balances or adjusting allocations if demand shifts.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Private and working forest landowners
Potential effect if enacted: A severe multi-year fire season drives patrol assessment costs beyond current revenue capacity; the appropriation fully covers all eligible landowners, preventing widespread property abandonment, forced timber liquidation, or default on forestry obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Oregon State Forestry Department and General Fund taxpayers
Potential effect if enacted: Demand for offsets exceeds $9 million mid-biennium; the department is forced to pro-rate payments arbitrarily, creating inequitable treatment among landowners and triggering claims of arbitrary administrative action without statutory authority to cap or prioritize distributions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would have legally permitted the department to allocate funds based on assessed cost increases. Weak administrative controls could have allowed ineligible properties to claim offsets, or enable the department to classify routine maintenance as compensable patrol costs, effectively expanding service obligations beyond legislative intent. Misclassification of non-forest parcels or double-dipping with other fire mitigation grants could have diverted funds from active suppression efforts without violating the letter of the appropriation.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades immediate General Fund expenditure for predictable cost relief for private landowners, balancing fiscal pressure against potential reductions in forest stewardship incentives. Upsides include stabilized property costs, reduced administrative friction, and rapid emergency funding. Downsides include the absence of sunset provisions or performance metrics, potential demand exceeding the appropriation, and bypassing standard fiscal scrutiny through the emergency clause.
Potential effect if enacted: Stabilized property costs for landowners
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Reduced administrative friction and rapid emergency funding
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Absence of sunset provisions or performance metrics
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Potential demand exceeding the appropriation
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Bypassing standard fiscal scrutiny through the emergency clause
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text explicitly states the appropriation amount, recipient, purpose, funding source, and effective date. No supporting analysis or testimony was provided to verify demand projections or administrative procedures. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
4 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced version remains the only adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established by the amendment history.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced version remains the only adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established by the amendment history.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appropri- 5 ated to the State Forestry Department, for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, out of the 6 General Fund, the amount of $9,000,000, for the purpose of offsetting potent”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appropri- 5 ated to the State Forestry Department, for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, out of the 6 General Fund, the amount of $9,000,000, for the purpose of offsetting potent”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced appropriation is the sole official policy text.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appropri- 5 ated to the State Forestry Department, for the biennium ending June 30, 2027, out of the 6 General Fund, the amount of $9,000,0”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Bobby Levy
Regular sponsors: Representative Court Boice, Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, Representative Matt Bunch, Representative Ed Diehl, Representative Darcey Edwards, Representative Jeffrey Helfrich, Representative Rick Lewis, Representative John Lively, Representative Emily McIntire, Representative Virgle Osborne, Representative Mark Owens, Representative Anna Scharf, Representative Alek Skarlatos, Representative Gregory Smith, Representative Dwayne Yunker, Senator Todd Nash, Representative E. Werner Reschke
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
4 events
Full timeline
4 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Referred to Climate, Energy, and Environment with subsequent referral to Ways and Means.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
transferred to the newly established Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund. HB 4056 (2022) further amended the distributions by requiring the $11.25 million quarte
transferred to the newly established Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund. HB 4056 (2022) further amended the distributions by requiring the $11.25 million quarte
“Appropriates moneys to the State Forestry Department to offset landowners' costs of fire protection provided by the department.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.