HR-10000-119
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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.
Sponsored by Brittany Pettersen (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to create the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Program, a competitive grant program for projects on National Forest System lands. Eligible recipients — including state and local governments, Indian Tribes, water districts, and electric utilities — could apply for funds to remove beetle-killed trees, reduce wildfire fuels, replant forests, restore ecosystems, and protect watersheds. The Secretary would prioritize grants that protect municipal water supplies, reduce wildfire risk in communities near forests, address areas with high tree mortality, and align with existing state forest or watershed plans.
Who benefits
Communities in the wildland-urban interface near beetle-affected National Forests, particularly in Western states such as Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and California. Municipal water utilities and their customers who depend on healthy forest watersheds for clean water. Electric utilities and transmission operators whose infrastructure is threatened by beetle-killed trees and associated wildfire risk. Indian Tribes with interests in affected forest lands. Timber and forestry contractors who would perform removal and restoration work. Reforestation and ecological restoration firms. Downstream communities that benefit from reduced flood, erosion, and sediment risk. Biodiversity and wildlife that benefit from ecological restoration activities.
Who is hurt
Applicants who are not selected in the competitive grant process, including smaller or less-resourced local governments and tribes that may lack capacity to prepare strong applications. Taxpayers who fund the program. Entities not listed as eligible "sponsors" — such as private landowners, nonprofits, or universities — who are excluded from applying. Competing federal forestry or conservation programs that may face reduced attention or resources if this program draws congressional focus. Potentially, old-growth or ecologically sensitive areas if thinning or removal activities are not carefully scoped.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mountain pine beetle outbreaks have killed hundreds of millions of trees across tens of millions of acres of Western forests, creating catastrophic wildfire fuel loads and threatening municipal water supplies for millions of Americans. They contend that the competitive grant structure ensures funds flow to the highest-priority projects — those protecting communities, infrastructure, and watersheds — while the alignment requirement with state forest action plans ensures coordination with existing local strategies rather than duplicating them.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a new standalone grant program adds administrative complexity and cost without addressing the underlying drivers of beetle outbreaks, such as drought and warming temperatures, that make forests more vulnerable. They contend that existing authorities under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and USDA Forest Service programs already provide mechanisms for beetle response, and that creating a parallel competitive grant structure may fragment funding, slow response times in genuine emergencies, and favor well-resourced applicants over rural communities with the greatest need.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to manage and dispose of federal lands, including National Forest System lands, is grounded in the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which grants Congress broad power over federal property. The Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) also supports federal regulation of activities affecting interstate resources such as watersheds and wildfire. No active constitutional tension is apparent, as this bill operates squarely on federal land and delegates a well-defined, limited grant-making function to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USDA/Forest Service) gains new grant-making authority; Congress retains oversight through appropriations control, as the bill does not itself appropriate funds, and through standard committee oversight of Forest Service programs.
Historical precedent
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 established similar federal authority for hazardous fuels reduction and forest health projects on National Forest System lands, including competitive grant and agreement mechanisms for collaborative restoration.