Congress funds $60B forest and watershed restoration—with industry at the table

What it does

This bill establishes a $60 billion Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund to finance forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration projects across the U.S., split between grants to states, tribes, and nonprofits ($20B) and direct federal restoration work ($40B). It creates an advisory council with industry, conservation, and government representatives to guide spending, and streamlines federal contracting to accelerate restoration work on both public and private land.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is direct federal appropriation for ecological restoration, wildfire risk reduction, and watershed protection on public and private land, with secondary emphasis on workforce development and community resilience. It is a large-scale environmental and public-safety investment, not a regulatory or tax measure.

What the text implies

• The bill grants the Secretary broad discretion to designate partnership areas within 60 days with minimal procedural constraint, potentially enabling rapid land-use decisions with limited public input or environmental review.
• Pay-for-performance contracting authority (section 3(g), 5(d)) allows the Secretary to purchase 'successfully implemented' project outcomes at negotiated prices, creating incentive structures that may prioritize speed and cost over long-term ecological outcomes or community benefit.
• The advisory council includes 3 representatives from 'resource-dependent industries' (agriculture, oil and gas, forest products) alongside conservation representatives, potentially creating conflicts of interest in priority-setting for restoration on federal land.
• Interagency flexibility provisions (section 3(f)) allow the Secretary to 'modify, expand, or streamline eligibility and verification criteria' for covered authorities, potentially bypassing statutory requirements or environmental review processes embedded in those authorities.
• The bill does not establish a sunset date or mandatory reauthorization, creating an open-ended $60B commitment with no built-in congressional review trigger.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill funds large-scale ecological restoration and wildfire mitigation that directly reduce risks to communities in the wildland-urban interface, improve water quality and wildlife habitat, and create outdoor-sector jobs. The advisory council includes conservation and community representatives, and the bill prioritizes underserved communities and workforce development, though industry representatives on the council create a mixed governance structure.

Who stands to gain

• outdoor recreation and forest products industries (via advisory council representation and workforce
• state and local governments (grant recipients)
• tribal governments (grant recipients and partnership participants)
• nonprofit conservation organizations (grant recipients)
• contractors and service providers performing restoration work

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Agriculture (Secretary of Agriculture), Restoration Fund Advisory Council, Forest Service, Department of the Interior, State governments, Tribal governments, Eligible entities (nonprofits, local governments, special districts), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58), Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117–169), Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Agricultural Act of 2014, Food Security Act of 1985

Where it stands

• Feb 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources and House Committee on Agriculture · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,060,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 24 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Jason Crow, the sponsor, reported $227,840 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Case New Holland Industrial Inc — $680,000 on 2 filings
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California — $380,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.