S-327-113
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 175.
Sponsored by John Barrasso (R-WY)
What it does
This bill would allow the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with state governors to coordinate forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration work on both federal and non-federal land. It would exempt certain timber sale requirements under the National Forest Management Act from applying to work done under these agreements. It would require federal agencies to retain control over environmental review decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prohibiting delegation of those decisions to state governors.
Who benefits
State governments, which would gain a formal role in planning and carrying out restoration work on federal lands within their borders. Timber and forestry contractors, who may gain access to more restoration and timber sale projects through state-coordinated procurement. Rural communities near National Forest System and BLM lands, which could see faster or more locally tailored land management. Landowners on non-federal land adjacent to federal forests, who could benefit from coordinated watershed and rangeland restoration across property lines.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation groups, who may be concerned that exempting certain National Forest Management Act timber sale requirements could reduce environmental protections on federal lands. Federal forestry employees, whose workload or authority could shift as states take on a larger coordination role. Taxpayers, if sole-source (non-competitive) contracts authorized under the bill result in higher costs for restoration services. Members of the public who rely on NEPA's public comment process, as streamlined state-coordinated projects could reduce opportunities for public input on some restoration activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill would make federal land management more efficient and responsive by allowing states — which often have deep knowledge of local forest and watershed conditions — to partner directly with federal agencies on restoration work. They contend that the current system creates bureaucratic delays that allow forests to deteriorate, increasing wildfire risk and harming ecosystems. By enabling coordinated work across federal and non-federal land boundaries, the bill would allow restoration projects to address problems at a landscape scale rather than stopping at property lines. Supporters also note that NEPA decision-making authority remains with federal agencies, preserving core environmental review protections while still reducing red tape for on-the-ground restoration activities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that exempting certain National Forest Management Act timber sale requirements from projects conducted under these agreements could weaken longstanding protections for federal public lands, potentially allowing logging or other activities with less oversight than current law requires. They contend that authorizing sole-source contracts bypasses competitive bidding, which could increase costs and reduce accountability for how public lands and public funds are used. Critics also raise concern that shifting coordination authority to governors — who are elected officials with their own policy priorities — could allow state political interests to influence the management of lands that belong to all Americans, not just residents of the state where the land is located.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8), which forms the constitutional basis for federal management of public lands and natural resources. The Property Clause (Art. IV, §3) gives Congress broad authority over federal lands, supporting the federal agencies' retained control over NEPA decisions. The bill's cooperative agreement structure implicates the anti-commandeering doctrine (Tenth Amendment), though participation by governors is voluntary, which generally satisfies that doctrine. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts would independently review agency interpretations of the bill's scope rather than deferring to agency readings. The major questions doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (2022) could be relevant if agencies attempt to expand the bill's authority significantly through rulemaking.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts some operational coordination authority from the executive branch's federal agencies (USDA and Interior) to state governors, while explicitly retaining federal decision-making authority over NEPA environmental reviews. Congress sets the boundaries of permissible delegation. The executive branch (federal agencies) retains final approval over silviculture prescriptions and marking guides on federal land, preserving a check on state-directed activities. The requirement that agreements be made publicly available provides a transparency mechanism, though it does not create a formal legislative or judicial check on individual agreements.
Historical precedent
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (2009) similarly authorized cooperative federal-state-local partnerships for forest restoration. The Stewardship Contracting authority (first enacted 1999, made permanent 2014) also allowed federal agencies to enter agreements with outside parties for land restoration work, providing a direct structural precedent for this bill's cooperative agreement model.