HR-7951-119
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Sponsored by David Valadao (R-CA)
What it does
The Long-Term Good Neighbor Authority Act would extend or make permanent the authority for the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to enter into long-term cooperative agreements — known as "Good Neighbor Authority" — with state and local governments to carry out forest and rangeland restoration work on federal lands. These agreements allow states to perform activities such as timber harvesting, hazardous fuels reduction, and watershed restoration on behalf of federal agencies. The bill would modify the duration or terms under which these agreements can be structured.
Who benefits
State and local governments that gain expanded authority and longer planning horizons to manage federal lands within their borders. Timber and logging companies that may receive more consistent, long-term contracts through state-administered programs. Rural communities and counties that depend economically on forest management activity. Wildfire-prone communities that may benefit from increased hazardous fuels reduction work. State forestry agencies and their workforces. Watershed-dependent water utilities and agricultural users who benefit from improved forest health.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation groups that prefer federal oversight of federal lands and may view expanded state authority as reducing environmental protections. Federal agency employees (Forest Service, BLM) whose roles may be partially displaced by state contractors. Taxpayers if long-term agreements lock in costs without competitive bidding flexibility. Tribes and indigenous communities who may have less input into state-administered land management decisions on ancestral lands. Wildlife habitat interests if increased timber activity accompanies expanded agreements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing Good Neighbor Authority has proven effective — a 2020 Forest Service report found that state-administered projects completed restoration work faster and at lower cost than federally managed contracts. They contend that longer agreement terms give states and contractors the planning certainty needed to invest in equipment and workforce, accelerating the pace of hazardous fuels reduction at a time when wildfire risk is increasing across the American West.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that shifting more federal land management to state governments weakens the uniform environmental standards and public accountability that federal oversight provides, potentially allowing timber extraction to outpace genuine restoration goals. They contend that long-term agreements reduce competitive bidding opportunities and may lock the federal government into unfavorable terms, with limited ability to adjust as conditions, budgets, or conservation priorities change over the life of the agreement.