Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act
Introduced June 11, 2025 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill requires the Comptroller General (head of the Government Accountability Office) to study which federal programs, rules, and authorities currently help or block wildfire mitigation efforts that cross property lines between federal and private/state/tribal land. Within 2 years, the Comptroller General must report findings and recommend ways to simplify cross-boundary wildfire mitigation.
Who benefits
Federal land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service), state forestry departments, local fire management agencies, tribal governments, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service—all organizations responsible for wildfire mitigation who currently face barriers to coordinating across property boundaries.
Who pays / loses
No direct costs or losses are imposed by this bill; it is a study-only measure. However, landowners (private timber companies, ranchers, homeowners with property adjacent to federal land) currently benefit from the status quo if regulatory barriers to cross-boundary mitigation protect their property interests or autonomy from federal requirements.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Wildfire mitigation research and coordination benefits environmental and forestry advocacy organizations (The Nature Conservancy, American Forest Foundation, state forestry associations) and federal agencies with budgetary stakes in wildfire response. Sponsor Sen. Gallego's 2024 contributions show $89,280 from 'Other' sources (unspecified), $4,790 from healthcare, $3,990 from finance, $3,398 from energy, and $1,135 from law, with zero PAC contributions. His Arizona constituency includes significant federal land ownership (Arizona contains 27% federally managed land) and communities affected by large wildfires, creating regional political incentive for cross-boundary coordination.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Communities in western states with high federal land ownership (Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado, Idaho) where wildfires cross federal-private property lines; rural residents in the wildland-urban interface; tribal nations whose lands abut federal forests; state and local fire agencies operating with fragmented jurisdiction; federal land managers unable to conduct unified mitigation across boundaries. Approximately 640 million acres of federal land exist in the United States, with 58% concentrated in western states.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that wildfire mitigation is hampered by fragmented authority, outdated rules, and insufficient funding mechanisms for coordinated action across property boundaries—a common problem in western fire management. They contend a study will identify regulatory and funding barriers that, once removed, enable more effective fire prevention. Critics might argue the study delays action and that problems with cross-boundary mitigation are already well-documented (multiple GAO reports and USDA studies have identified these barriers since 2015). Non-partisan evidence from the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service have repeatedly documented that fragmented land ownership, unclear authorities, and competitive funding mechanisms impede landscape-scale wildfire mitigation, lending credibility to the study's premise.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, this bill creates a 2-year study that will likely recommend legislative and regulatory changes to existing authorities. Analogous efforts: the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (which the bill explicitly references) attempted to streamline federal environmental reviews for hazardous fuel reduction but was undermined by litigation and unclear interagency coordination. The 2015 GAO report on federal wildfire preparedness identified legal, budgetary, and coordination barriers to cross-boundary mitigation as ongoing obstacles. The study itself imposes no costs but the recommendations could lead to new legislation expanding federal funding, loosening environmental review requirements, or requiring interagency agreements—changes that could accelerate fuel reduction projects but face environmental review delays and stakeholder disputes. Without passage, no federal review of cross-boundary barriers will occur, and fragmented mitigation efforts will continue as present law permits.
Sponsor
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$89,280.61
Healthcare$4,790
Finance$3,990
Energy$3,398
Law$1,135
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.