Policy Corner: Wildfire: A Crisis In Need of a Bipartisan Solution (And, What Can the House of Representatives and the Senate Really Do?)

Bryan Pride • May 9, 2025

Across the country wildfires are increasingly more catastrophic; growing larger, spreading faster and burning longer than before. Nationwide, the total acres burned rose dramatically from 2.7 million in 2023 to nearly 9 million in 2024. California is averaging more than 7,500 wildfires annually. Not including the recent Los Angeles fires, six of the top ten most destructive fires, three of the five deadliest fires, and all of the state's nine largest fires have occurred since 2017. 


It is unsustainable for both California and the country to continue burning at this magnitude. This leaves us with the question: "What can be done to solve the wildfire problem?" 


In response to this growing crisis, lawmakers are taking action. Congress is advancing different versions of the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) in the Senate and House of Representatives. How these bills progress and the opportunities to amend, change or improve these bills are constrained by the different processes in the House and the Senate.


The House of Representatives


The House of Representatives version of FOFA, (H.R. 471), was introduced by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) in January 2025 with 43 bipartisan cosponsors, including several from California.  With a stated goal to expedite forest management activities under NEPA. H.R. 471, it significantly reflectsExecutive Order 14225, "Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production" (March 1, 2025). While the legislation takes some important steps, there are also significant concerns regarding rollbacks of environmental protections and judicial review. 


FOFA, H.R. 471, establishes an interagency Fireshed Center overseen by the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service comprised of 15 agencies, administrations, departments and bureaus to gather data, provide guidance and work with states and tribes. It sets up a process to designate “fireshed management areas” and expands projects exempt from full reviews from 3,000 – 10,000 acres. The bill heavily favors logging as a form of fire management, but also embraces prescribed burns and prioritizes reforestation and restoration projects. 


H.R. 471 grants numerous “categorical exclusions”, exempting areas and projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. H.R. 471 also fast-tracks environmental review and consultation. At the same time, the Administration is significantly gutting personnel and expertise through DOGE and its budget.


H.R. 471 alters the judicial process. H.R. 471 limits when a court can grant injunctive relief. What is injunctive relief? That is the ability of the court to say: “Stop doing what you are doing.” Or slow it down, or change it, while we figure this out. It is common. Removing it is unusual. H.R. 471 limits the court’s ability to order corrective actions, limits plaintiff’s ability to sue, limits the court’s ability to require additional data from an agency and allows the challenged activities to go forward while under review. H.R. 471 also decreases the statute of limitations (the time that someone has to sue) from 6 years to 120 days.


Much concern was expressed over the expansion of categorical exclusions, the change in judicial review procedures and timelines and fast-tracking of proposals. However, there was no opportunity to address any of these issues. 


When a bill is introduced in the House of Representatives, much like in the Senate, it is assigned to a committee with subject matter expertise. Committees study bills, hold hearings and gather testimony from experts. Committees hold mark-up sessions to debate and make changes to the bill through amendments. When a House of Representatives Committee passes a bill, it sends the bill to the House Rules Committee. 


The House Rules committee determines the form of the bill, which amendments will be allowed, how long folks will have to speak, or not, and when the bill moves. The House Rules Committee is run by the party in power, by the majority party. The Rules Committee is heavily tilted to favor the majority party, giving it full control over the floor of the House or Representatives. The Rules Committee has nine members of the majority party, Republicans, and 4 members of the minority party, Democrats. There is no comparable Committee in the Senate. 


No committee hearings or mark-ups were held on H.R. 471. Only three amendments and only one hour of debate were allowed. In the House of Representatives, a simple majority vote is necessary for bill passage. In January 2025, the H.R. 471 passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 279-141 without a hearing or mark-up and with scant debate.


In the Senate


Now, attention has turned to the Senate, where Senators Curtis (R-UT), Hickenlooper (D-CO), Sheehy (R-MT) and Padilla’s (D-CA) version of FOFA, S. 1462, introduced in April, is making its way through the Senate process. The bill’s stated goal is to improve forest management on BLM and USFS lands. 


Similar to the House of Representatives, when a bill is introduced in the Senate, it is assigned to a committee for study, hearings, expert testimony, a mark-up session and amendments. In fact, the Senate Agriculture Committeehas already begun reviewing the legislation, holding a legislative hearing on S. March 6. The next step will be a mark-up in committee, where we can expect to see robust debate.


If the Committee decides to move forward with the bill, it sends it to the full Senate. If a committee does not send the bill to the Senate, the bill dies in committee. Once a bill is released from committee, the Majority Leader of the Senate is responsible for deciding when to send the legislation for a vote. There is no Rules Committee. At this stage of floor consideration and debate is when there is the most significant difference in the legislative process between the House and the Senate. During floor consideration, a senator or group of senators can exercise their right to unlimited debate through a filibuster, which can keep legislation off the floor indefinitely. Once a debate is closed through cloture, the Senate can move to a final vote on the bill, which requires a simple majority of 51 votes. 


A bill on the Senate floor requires only 51 votes to pass after a debate has ended, but it takes 60 votes to cut off debate through a process called "cloture." If 60 Senators vote in favor of ending the debate, it will move to a final vote. Because of the razor thin margin in the Senate – 53 Rs, 45 Ds and 2 Independents – Republicans will need Democrats to vote with them to stop debate and advance FOFA to a vote. The requirement for broader consensus often means that legislation passed by the Senate has undergone more compromise. This provides an opportunity for the minority party to shape the bill that is not present in the House of Representatives. 


Thus, the Senate version of FOFA, S. 1462, represents a significant improvement over the House version. It too sets up “fireshed management areas” and calls for fireshed assessments, albeit based on different criteria than the House version. A centerpiece of S. 1462 is the establishment of Wildfire Intelligence Center staffed by wildfire experts, technical leads, and indigenous leaders and governed by a Board of 16 agencies, administrations, departments and bureaus. The legislation removes historical barriers that previously prevented foresters, fire teams, and indigenous communities from implementing these preventative practices, allowing for more proactive management across all phases of wildfire prevention, response, and recovery. These centers create opportunities for multifaceted approaches throughout the entire fire management cycle, from prevention to rapid response to restoration.


The Senate version also retains more authority for environmental reviews and judicial action. While the S. 1462 retains greater environmental review under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act, it also rolls back ESA reviews of land management plans and other environmental reviews depending on acreage. S. 1462 too limits injunctive relief, although not as significantly as the House version. S. 1462 leaves untouched other aspects of judicial review.


The Senate version of FOFA has garnered bipartisan support from leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as from California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, and CAL Fire Director and Fire Chief Joe Tyler.


Next Steps for the Legislation


If the Senate passes a version of FOFA that is different from the House version, which is highly likely, a conference committee will be formed with members from both the House and the Senate to reconcile the differences. After the conference committee reaches agreement on a bill, both chambers must vote again to approve the reconciled bill before it can go before the President to be signed into law. 


Tuleyome will continue to keep you updated on the Fix Our Forests Acts. We hope to see real-time action and solutions to improve the fire resilience of our communities and our forests and improve forest health and wildfire management. 


Co-Authored by

Bryan Pride and Sandra Schubert

RECENT ARTICLES

Wildfires and California Oaks – Nature and You Lectures

By Geoff Benn • October 7, 2026
Blue oaks on the Berryessa Peak Trail. Photo by Geoff Benn. Our September Nature and You speaker was Tuleyome Education Associate Geoff Benn, who gave a lecture on one of his favorite subjects, California’s amazing oaks. In the lecture, Geoff discussed how California’s oaks evolved and how they deal with a range of challenges, including drought, fire, and diseases. If you missed it, be sure to check out his talk here. 

Welcome Interns!

By Geoff Benn • October 7, 2026
Interns Deana Martinez, Yaquelin Gonzalez, Gabriella Limon, Ben Hubbard, and Keira Lazaro at Woodland Regional Park Preserve. Tuleyome is excited to welcome our largest ever cohort of interns, including four Horticultural Interns and one Communications Intern! Our Horticultural Interns are paired with volunteer mentors at Woodland Regional Park Preserve where they learn about managing invasive plants and monitoring populations of rare native plants. This year’s mentors are Jennifer Hogan and Teri Barry, both longtime volunteers and leadership team members at the Preserve. Our Communications Intern works closely with Program Director Nate Lillge to shape and execute our communications, including social media, e-newsletters, and more. Keep reading to meet each of our interns: Horticultural Intern Yaquelin Gonzalez has lived within the bounds of Sacramento County her whole life, where her mother’s garden and love for rock collecting sparked her appreciation for nature. Her desire to enter the environmental field was further fueled via nature-based field trips during elementary school. After high school, she began studying at American River College and eventually transferred to the University of California, Davis in 2025 to study Environmental Science and Management, focusing on Ecology, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Here, she has gained an interest in soil science as well as plant ecology and hopes to pursue a research career in restoration ecology. In her spare time, she likes to go on nature walks, play the guitar, read, bake, and listen to podcasts. Horticultural Intern Ben Hubbard grew up in Roseville, California where he spent a lot of time outdoors with friends, competing in sports, hiking, as well as instructing elementary school field trips about the environment, specifically wetlands. He just recently transferred from Sierra College to the University of California, Davis and is working towards completing his Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science and Management with a specialization in Ecology. When he completes his education, he hopes he can make a difference in the world and help to preserve wildlife and natural land for the next generation to enjoy as much as he has. When he’s taking a break from studying you can find him practicing with his recreational sports team, grabbing a coffee, hiking, enjoying a good story, or just hanging out with friends. Horticultural Intern Keira Lazaro is a third year undergraduate at University of California, Davis where she majors in Environmental Toxicology. She’s specializing in pharmacology and biotechnology with hopes to work in a research lab on specific pathogens that attack native California crops. She is also a part of the University Honors Program in Davis and is taking the first couple of steps towards her fourth year signature work on the oxidation chemistry behind electronic cigarette devices, specifically with exposure in indoor environments. Keira grew up in Los Angeles County and hopes to find a career in Southern California once she graduates. When she is able to go back home she spends most of her free time at the beach or hiking. Communications Intern Gabriella Limon grew up in Bishop, California, within the Sierra Nevada and Owens Valley where she became connected with wildlife and stewardship. She spent her later teenage years in Southern California and committed to the University of California, Davis, where she is currently pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning with a focus on conservation management. In addition, she is also a scholar staff member of the UC Davis Women’s Resources and Research Center where she provides STEM-based programming and academic support to students of marginalized identities. Gabby is especially passionate about wildlife justice, land protection, and environmental education. She spends her free time writing, playing video games, tide pooling, hiking, and logging critters. Horticultural Intern Deana Martinez grew up in Arbuckle, California, surrounded by rice fields and almond orchards, which grew her interests in agriculture. She is currently in her 4th year at the University of California, Davis, where she is pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Entomology with a Soil Science minor. Along with classes, she is involved in a Nematology research lab, working with plant parasitic nematodes and their interactions with common crop systems in California. She has also held a student position with the Plant Biology research greenhouses as a technician for the past 3 years. Outside of school and work, Deana enjoys hiking, reading, and spending time with her family.

Policy Corner: California Fights Back on Endangered Species Protections

By Shai Demus • October 7, 2026
California’s condors and sea otters are two of conservation’s great comeback stories – species that were once on the brink of extinction and have rebounded thanks in large part to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That 50-year-old law is now facing one of the most significant rollbacks in its history, and California is fighting back in court. Last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s recent changes to the ESA. At the center of the fight is a single but enormously consequential change: the administration rescinded the longstanding definition of “harm” under the Act – a definition that, since the early 1980s, has made it illegal to destroy or damage the places endangered species live, breed, and feed. Without it, habitat destruction itself may no longer count as illegal “harm” to a species, even though most biologists agree habitat loss is the single biggest threat facing endangered species today. The changes don’t stop there. The administration is also making it easier for federal agencies to avoid designating “critical habitat” for at-risk species, and it has eliminated automatic protections for newly-listed threatened species – meaning wildlife officials must now write custom protection rules for each species one at a time. That’s a heavy lift for an agency that has reportedly lost more than a third of its staff, and which currently has 400 species waiting for a protection decision. Why this matters here at home California is home to more threatened and endangered species than any other state. It’s natural to assume the state’s own Endangered Species Act would fill any gap left by federal rollbacks – but legal experts point out that California’s law, as written, doesn’t clearly protect habitat at all. It primarily prohibits killing or injuring individual members of a listed species, not damaging the places they live. That means the very thing under threat federally – habitat protection – may not have a reliable backstop at the state level either. What this means for our work At Tuleyome, so much of what we do, protecting oak woodlands, wildlife corridors, and watershed habitat across our region – depends on the basic principle that a species' home matters as much as the species itself. A condor or a Clear Lake hitch can’t survive court-ordered protection from hunting alone if the habitat it depends on is quietly bulldozed, drilled, or logged out from under it. This lawsuit is about defending that basic principle at the federal level, and it’s a reminder of why local land protection and legislative advocacy matters now more than ever – because the safety net above us may have real holes in it.