HR-8474-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Shontel Brown (D-OH)
What it does
This bill would amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to create a "Neighborhood Tree Fund" administered by the U.S. Forest Service. It would authorize up to $2 billion in total appropriations between fiscal years 2025 and 2029 — starting at $100 million and rising to $700 million annually — to provide grants to states, Indian Tribes, and local governments for planting and maintaining trees. The bill would prioritize funding for high-poverty census tracts, formerly redlined neighborhoods, and areas with lower tree canopy and higher summer temperatures. It would also expand the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council from 15 to 16 members, adding a seat for a resident of a low-income community.
Who benefits
Residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods who currently have less tree canopy and face greater heat exposure. State and local governments and Indian Tribes that would receive grant funding. Urban forestry contractors, arborists, nurseries, and landscaping businesses that would perform planting and maintenance work. Workers who may gain employment through tree-planting programs. Residents in formerly redlined areas who experience elevated land temperatures. Public health broadly, through improved air quality and reduced urban heat. Community food producers who could benefit from agroforestry provisions.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would fund the $2 billion authorization. Applicants in wealthier or majority-white communities who would be deprioritized for grants. Competing federal programs that may face budget pressure if appropriations are constrained. Tree canopy projects in rural or suburban areas that do not meet the poverty or heat-disparity criteria. Applicants who do not meet the bill's procedural requirements (community engagement, canopy assessments, monitoring plans), which may disadvantage smaller or less-resourced local governments.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses a documented and measurable environmental inequity: Forest Service research shows neighborhoods with mostly people of color have 33% less tree canopy on average, and formerly redlined areas experience land temperatures up to 7 degrees Celsius higher than non-redlined counterparts. They contend that urban trees provide over $18 billion in annual benefits — including reduced energy costs, improved air quality, and stormwater management — and that directing federal resources toward underserved communities would reduce both health disparities and long-term public costs associated with heat-related illness and energy burden.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's explicit prioritization by race and neighborhood demographics may raise equal protection concerns and that federal dollars should be allocated based on environmental need alone, not historical redlining designations. They contend that the $2 billion authorization represents a significant federal expenditure for a program that has traditionally been a state and local responsibility, and that the bill's escalating funding structure — growing sevenfold over five years — lacks sufficient accountability mechanisms to ensure trees are successfully established and maintained after federal funding ends.