Wildland Firefighter Hazard Pay Correction Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2026
Bottom line
This bill ensures federal wildland firefighters engaged in prescribed burns and smokejumpers performing jumps receive hazard pay equivalent to that for fighting active wildfires, recognizing comparable risks.
What it actually does
This bill amends section 5545 of title 5, United States Code, to explicitly include duties involving the ignition, control, or suppression of prescribed burns and parachute jumps by smokejumper firefighters as hazardous duties. It mandates that these duties receive the same pay differential as fighting forest and range fires on the fireline. The bill also requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue implementing regulations within 90 days of enactment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this correction is essential for fair compensation, recognizing the significant risks, smoke exposure, and arduous tasks associated with prescribed burns and smokejumper operations, which are comparable to active wildfire suppression. They emphasize the importance of prescribed fires for proactive land management and fire preparedness, and that those performing these duties deserve equitable pay for their efforts and dangers.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about increased federal personnel costs or the expansion of hazard pay categories, arguing that existing compensation structures are sufficient or that differentiating between types of fire management could lead to further pay equity demands across various hazardous federal occupations. However, direct opposition to hazard pay for these specific duties is not explicitly stated in the bill context and might be minimal given the safety implications.
The bill is very short and clearly written, allowing for quick comprehension of its core purpose and provisions.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Hazard Pay for Prescribed Burns and Smokejumper Duties
This section amends federal law (5 U.S.C. 5545) to classify duties related to igniting, controlling, or suppressing prescribed burns, as well as parachute jumps from flying aircraft by smokejumper firefighters, as hazardous duties. It mandates that these duties receive the same pay differential as fighting active forest and range fires on the fireline. The bill also defines 'prescribed burn' as the intentional application of fire for land or resource management and requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue implementing regulations within 90 days.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision rectifies an unfair disparity, ensuring that firefighters undertaking dangerous and physically demanding tasks in prescribed burns and smokejumper operations are appropriately compensated for their risks, which are comparable to those faced during active wildfire suppression. This also acknowledges the critical role of prescribed burns in proactive land management and the inherent hazards of smokejumper operations.
Critics contend
Critics, if any, might argue that expanding hazard pay categories could set precedents for other federal occupations or lead to increased personnel costs without a clear demonstration of new or uncompensated risks beyond what is already covered. However, given the explicit 'sense of Congress' and the nature of the work, direct opposition to this specific provision is likely minimal.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between ensuring fair and equitable compensation for hazardous work and managing federal personnel costs. While the bill aims to correct a perceived inequity and recognize significant risks, it will result in increased expenditure for federal agencies employing these firefighters.
This rule of construction clarifies that the new hazard pay provisions for prescribed burns and smokejumper duties do not override or eliminate any existing hazard pay determinations under 5 U.S.C. 5545(d), except where necessary to ensure the newly covered duties comply with the specified differential.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended repeal or alteration of existing law. It serves as a technical clarification to ensure legal consistency rather than introducing new policy, making its placement at the end typical for such provisions.
Case for: This provision ensures legal clarity and prevents unintended consequences by explicitly stating that existing hazard pay provisions for other duties remain in effect, thereby avoiding potential legal challenges or confusion regarding other hazardous federal occupations.
Case against: No significant case against this provision, as it is a clarifying measure. Some might argue it adds unnecessary legalistic complexity to an otherwise straightforward bill, but its purpose is to prevent ambiguity.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential legal disputes or unintended loss of hazard pay for other federal employees, ensuring continuity of existing compensation structures.