Sponsors (6)
Requires the Comptroller General (GAO) to study how federal programs, rules, and authorities help or hinder wildfire mitigation across boundaries between federal and non‑federal lands. The study must evaluate whether changes could increase capacity or improve access to funding for federal land managers, States, local governments, and Tribes, review certain activities under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and deliver a report with recommendations to two congressional committees within two years of enactment.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on existing Federal programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit wildfire mitigation from being completed across land ownership boundaries on Federal and non-Federal land.
The study must examine whether changes to any program, rule, or authority identified would allow Federal land management agencies, the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service), the Secretary of Homeland Security (acting through the Administrator of FEMA), the U.S. Fire Administration, States, local governments, and Tribal governments increased capacity or access to funding to mitigate wildfires.
The study must examine activities carried out pursuant to subsection (e) of section 103 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, including (A) how to improve the efficacy of such activities in mitigating wildfire and (B) whether enactment of that subsection has increased access of Federal land management agencies and States to funding to mitigate wildfires.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report containing the results of the study and recommendations to simplify cross-boundary wildfire mitigation.
The report submitted to Congress must include (1) the results of the study required and (2) recommendations to simplify cross-boundary wildfire mitigation between Federal land management agencies and State, local, and Tribal governments.
Primary near‑term effects are informational and procedural: federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribal governments will be studied and identified as stakeholders. Federal land managers (for example, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) and agency program offices will need to provide information and may be asked to document how current programs and rules affect cross‑boundary mitigation work. States, local governments, and Tribes could see their legal, technical, and funding barriers examined; the study may identify ways to increase their capacity or improve access to federal funding. Communities in wildfire‑prone areas and third‑party contractors who do mitigation work could indirectly benefit in the long term if recommendations lead to simplified processes or increased resources. Because the law only requires a study and a report, there are no immediate regulatory or funding changes; any practical effects depend on whether Congress or agencies act on GAO’s recommendations.
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 11, 2025 by Joseph Neguse
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Updated 1 day ago
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)