Illinois open-burn bill ignites capitol clash

By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
The Center Square

(The Center Square) – A proposal aimed at giving local fire protection districts more oversight of open burning in unincorporated areas has sparked controversy at the Illinois Capitol.

Republican lawmakers are warning the bill is vague, punitive, and unfairly targets rural residents, while the Democratic sponsor says critics are mischaracterizing her intent.

House Bill 4459, sponsored by State Rep. Amy “Murri” Briel, D-Ottawa, would let counties and townships in unincorporated areas adopt permit rules for certain open burns. Briel says the goal is to help fire districts track fires, cut unnecessary calls, and improve readiness during droughts.

However, State Rep. Brad Halbrook, Republican spokesman on the Counties and Townships House committee, R-Shelbyville, said the bill as written raises serious concerns about increased fees and excessive penalties for rural residents.

“There seems to be a difference between the way the bill sponsor believes it to be and the way Republicans believe it to be,” Halbrook said. “It’s pretty vague. And whether there’s bill drafting errors or whatever the case might be, this is more of the same, vague bills loaded full of unintended consequences.”

Halbrook said his reading of the legislation suggests it could allow local governments to charge residents per burn, potentially around $5 per permit, something he said would disproportionately impact people living outside city limits.

“They want to charge fees for things that limit an individual’s freedom and liberty on their private property. Many municipalities already have the authority, through ordinance or state law, to regulate burning. We saw countywide burn bans just this past summer because of drought and dry conditions. If the concern is safety, those tools already exist — but if this is just another way to add mandates, regulations, and raise money, I think it’s a bad idea,” said Halbrook.

Briel, however, pushed back strongly against what she described as misinformation surrounding the bill.

In a statement released after the backlash, she said HB 4459 was never intended to limit campfires or bonfires and does not affect them under the bill’s definition of “open burns,” which is drawn from existing state statute under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal.

“Seeing this influx of inaccurate news is very disheartening,” Briel said.

Halbrook questioned how such rules would be enforced and whether local governments would realistically adopt them.

“How do you regulate that? How do you enforce that?” Halbrook said. “It may be well-intentioned and aimed at providing additional funding for what she calls resource-strapped fire protection districts, but if the state were better managed, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.”

Halbrook said local governments struggle not from lack of fees, but from Springfield’s repeated mandates, which drive up costs and strain resources.

The bill imposes penalties up to $100,000 for burns without a permit and $500,000 for violations on “no-burn days,” which Halbrook called excessive.

“Those numbers are just unrealistic,” he said.

Briel emphasized that the measure does not require any local government to adopt new rules, but instead gives unincorporated areas the option to do so. Briel also cited worsening drought conditions and noted that three open burn fires last year caused more than $2 million in damages statewide.

Briel said she’s working on an amendment to fix a drafting error in the bill.

Halbrook said the response from the sponsor appears to be driven by public backlash.

“These ideas come out, there’s backlash, and then they have to walk them back because they’re out of line with the majority of people in the state,” said Halbrook.