New Forest Boundary Bill Creates Farmer-Only Mediation Panels for Federal Land Disputes

This new piece of legislation, officially dubbed the Fence Line Fairness Act of 2025, sets up a brand-new way to handle arguments over where National Forest land ends and private property begins. Essentially, the bill forces the Secretary of Agriculture to work with state agencies to create a special "oversight mediation committee" in every state that has National Forest land (SEC. 2).

Who Gets a Seat at the Table?

Here’s where it gets interesting: the composition of these committees is highly specific. Each committee must have five members, and all five must be active, private farmers or ranchers living in that specific state. The Secretary of Agriculture picks two, and the relevant state department (like the Department of Agriculture) picks the other three (SEC. 2).

Think about it this way: if you’re a rancher whose fence line is constantly debated by the Forest Service, this bill gives you the option to have your dispute heard by a panel made up entirely of your peers—people who understand the realities of working land. If the Secretary finds a boundary dispute, they have 30 days to notify the private landowner and give them the choice to use this new committee process. If the landowner opts in, the Secretary must send the issue to the committee within 60 days.

The Committee’s Process: Private and Peer-Driven

Once the committee gets the case, they must start holding private hearings within 180 days. These aren't public court proceedings; they are private sessions where the committee listens to both the landowner and the Forest Service officials involved. After reviewing the facts, the committee issues recommendations to both sides on how to resolve the boundary issue. They then write up a detailed report of their findings and recommendations, sending it up the chain to the Secretary, the Forest Service Chief, and even the Congressional Agriculture Committees (SEC. 2).

For a small farmer or rancher, this could be a huge benefit. Instead of hiring expensive lawyers to fight the federal government in court over a few feet of land, they get a specialized, faster, and cheaper mediation option led by people who speak their language. It acknowledges that land management issues often need practical, peer-based solutions.

The Trade-Off: Who’s Missing from the Room?

While this system is a clear win for private agricultural interests, it raises a big question about balance. When a dispute involves federal land—which is public land owned by everyone—the mediation panel is composed exclusively of private landholders. There is no requirement for representation from environmental groups, public land advocates, or even just general citizens who use the National Forest for recreation.

When a boundary dispute might affect public access, water rights, or sensitive ecological areas within the National Forest, having a committee made up solely of farmers and ranchers creates a structural bias toward private land interests. The hearings are also private, meaning the public doesn't get to see how these decisions—which affect federal land—are being made. The bill introduces a specialized, highly focused solution to a complex problem, but the trade-off is transparency and diverse representation in decisions affecting shared national resources.