The "Protect the West Act of 2025" establishes funding and programs for ecological restoration and wildfire risk reduction projects in the Western United States through grants, partnerships, and a new advisory council.
Jason Crow
Representative
CO-6
The "Protect the West Act of 2025" establishes an Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund and related grant and partnership programs to support restoration and resilience projects on both Federal and non-Federal lands. This act prioritizes wildfire risk reduction, habitat improvement, and job creation in resource-dependent communities. It also establishes a Restoration Fund Advisory Council to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on fund distribution and project prioritization. The act allocates $60 billion to these efforts, emphasizing collaboration, scientific rigor, and community involvement.
The "Protect the West Act of 2025" is dropping a whopping $60 billion into a new Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund. The goal? To tackle everything from overgrown forests and unhealthy watersheds to wildfire risks and struggling wildlife habitats, all while boosting jobs. It sets up two main programs: a grant program for non-federal lands and a partnership program focusing on both federal and non-federal lands. The act is applicable to restoration projects on any land.
This part of the bill sets aside $20 billion for grants. Think of it as seed money for local projects. State and local governments, Tribes, non-profits, and even some regional organizations can apply for funds to plan, coordinate, and actually do restoration work on non-federal lands. This includes making areas more resilient to wildfires and improving outdoor access, with a focus on equity.
For example, a local community group could get funding to clear out brush and create defensible space around homes in a fire-prone area (SEC. 5). Or, a non-profit could partner with a nearby town to restore a watershed that provides drinking water, creating jobs in the process (SEC. 5). There's even a "pay-for-performance" option, where groups get paid a set amount for achieving specific outcomes, like a certain number of acres restored (SEC. 3(g)).
This is where the big bucks come in – $40 billion, with at least half going to projects on federal land (SEC. 8(b)). The idea is to team up with state, local, and Tribal governments to tackle large-scale restoration projects, especially in areas facing high wildfire risk or needing urgent habitat improvements (SEC. 6(c)).
Imagine the Forest Service working with a state agency to thin out a dense forest bordering a town in the wildland-urban interface (SEC. 6(d)(3)). This reduces the risk of a catastrophic wildfire, protects homes, and potentially creates jobs for local loggers or forestry workers. Or, a project might focus on controlling invasive species that fuel wildfires, improving the overall health of rangelands (SEC. 6(b)(3)).
However, there are some no-go zones. Projects can't happen in designated wilderness areas, places where vegetation removal is restricted, or inventoried roadless areas, and they can't involve removing old-growth stands (SEC. 6(f)).
To guide how this money gets spent, the Act creates a Restoration Fund Advisory Council (SEC. 4). This group includes the Secretary of Agriculture, plus 12 members representing various interests – industry (agriculture, oil & gas, outdoor recreation, forest products), restoration experts, conservation groups, and state, local, and Tribal governments (SEC. 4(b)).
This council will advise on things like prioritizing landscapes for restoration and tracking project success (SEC. 4(a)). They'll also submit annual reports to Congress, detailing the environmental and economic benefits of the projects, job creation, and progress toward resilience goals (SEC. 4(d)).
The "Protect the West Act" represents a significant investment in restoring landscapes and reducing wildfire risk. It prioritizes projects that create jobs, involve local communities, and benefit underserved areas (SEC. 5(d)). It also opens doors for streamlined funding and collaboration. The Act mandates that any money allocated adds to existing funds, rather than replacing them. The Treasury Secretary is authorized to accept contributions from non-federal entities into the fund. The Act also mandates an annual report by the Inspector General to catch any misuse of funds. While the scale is ambitious and the potential benefits are real, the devil will be in the details – how effectively these funds are managed, how projects are prioritized, and whether the focus truly remains on long-term ecological health and community well-being.