Latest news with #FixOurForestsAct
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meet the Senate's bipartisan wildfire-fighting duo
A few months ago, Alex Padilla was trying to keep Tim Sheehy out of the US Senate. Now the two senators are emerging as a forceful bipartisan duo. The California Democrat and Montana Republican are collaborating on a series of bills intended to more aggressively fight the wildfire epidemic now gripping the country from coast to coast. They've bonded over raising kids as senators, shared drinks, and — yes — Padilla thinks Sheehy is an OK guy, despite defeating former Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., during Padilla's stint as a deputy on Democrats' campaign arm last year. 'Don't get me wrong: I love Big Jon. I miss Big Jon,' Padilla said, sitting beside Sheehy in a rare joint interview with Semafor. 'But the voters of Montana spoke. And I guess he's not as bad of a guy as I heard.' Fourteen new senators have been sworn in since the 2024 election, replacing departing bipartisan dealmakers. Senators are trying to rebuild cross-party relationships following that turnover, and Sheehy and Padilla show that it's possible. Sheehy is a former Navy SEAL serving in his first elected office; Padilla was an engineer before grinding his way through California politics to the Senate. The two met when Padilla spoke to new senators, just as wildfires were wreaking havoc on Los Angeles. Sheehy, who founded an aerial firefighting company in Montana, was an obvious partner for Padilla. 'If we can't agree on literally making sure that cities don't burn to the ground, then our republic is probably lost, you know?' Sheehy said. Semafor spoke to both senators about their partnership and the half-dozen bills they are working on together, which address forest management, wildfire coordination and readiness. This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Burgess Everett: How do you all stay connected on these issues amid everything that's happening in the Senate? Tim Sheehy: We share margaritas. And some beer. Alex Padilla: Modelo specifically. TS: We make the point on the floor always to pop over: 'Working on this, work on that.' We don't have a set meeting. It's not structured, but whenever we pass each other, make sure to give a quick update. AP: I have him captive when I see him in the chair [presiding over the Senate]. He can't run away from me. How are you toggling Republicans' for executive action from President Trump with your legislative drive? AP: I can't wait for a joint letter to the White House once the bills get through both the Senate and the House. The Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act is probably the prime example of what the collaboration can and should lead to. TS: That bill is flying kind of under the radar so far. But the scope and the implications of that bill really will be vast. Fire is kind of the breaching tool to focus people's attention on why it's critical we get after it. But the impacts are far beyond just fire. It's going to bring back a lot of common-sense management for our lands. … It's going to help revive our struggling timber industry, where in certain areas it's blossomed on private land, but on public land, in many cases, it's been restricted. This legislation has been crafted in a bipartisan way. Fires burn blue states and red states equally, they don't care. One of the things you are trying to do is centralize the national fire response. Why? TS: We have to. We keep referring to the West, which obviously is still the epicenter for it. But let's not forget, just about a month and a half ago, that town that burned in New Jersey was in the 98th percentile of fire danger. It wasn't a surprise. … Lahaina, the deadliest fire since Camp Fire — that was 99th percentile fire danger. That town had been modeled as a severe fire risk. Nothing had been done about it. So the disjointed, localized approach that's being defended by a lot of folks? … The same people that walked us into this mess are not the same people that are gonna get us out of this mess. Do you talk about climate change as you two work on this? TS: For me, no. My background as a soldier is: I'm in the middle of a gunfight. While I'm in the middle of a gunfight, I'm not opining as to whether we should be where we're at … my job is to fight the fight and win. If climate change is the cause of all these fires — guess what? Whatever dials we turn on the climate will be 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years down the line. And in the meantime, we owe our communities better protection than we're giving them now. AP: We have to do both. So I agree that the here and now has created a crisis, has created a sense of urgency, which is why we're doing this bill to be more strategic and effective in how we respond. But I do feel a responsibility to think: Why are there more frequent and larger wildfires? … California has been proudly a leader on things like the shift to renewable energy, electrification of the transportation system, just on and on and on to try to reduce emissions, because we also see how they're connected. In 2020 wildfires alone in California offset emission reductions that we had made for 20 years. TS: [In 2021] just two fires, the Dixie and the Caldor fires combined, emitted more carbon into the atmosphere than every single car in California. How do you get to the finish line on these bills, like the Fix Our Forests Act? AP: We're committed to each other. If there are amendments that we agree and help strengthen the bill, then great. But no poison pills that unravel this agreement, because it was a tough negotiation. … When we first announced it publicly, I got a message from [Rep. Bruce] Westerman on the House side. First positive message. OK, that's good. I can see the pathway to get out of the Senate, there's more than just hope on the House side.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The ‘Fix Our Forests Act' is no fix
The act isn't forest management. It's a corporate giveaway. (Photo: iStock/Getty Images) As a proud Nevadan and Lake Tahoe resident who cherishes our public lands and forests, I feel compelled to speak out against the so-called 'Fix Our Forests Act' (FOFA). Don't let the title fool you! This federal legislation is no fix. In fact, it's a reckless attempt to hand over the keys to our national forests to corporate logging interests under the guise of wildfire prevention. If passed, FOFA would open the floodgates to massive, unchecked logging projects that threaten the very landscapes we hold dear in Nevada and across the country. Let's start with the most alarming piece: FOFA would enable a Trump executive order to ramp up commercial logging across nearly 60% of America's national forests. This is not hyperbole. It's a direct result of language in FOFA that weakens environmental protections and strips the public of its voice in managing these lands. The bill allows agencies to bypass crucial environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Incredibly, it even permits NEPA reviews to happen after logging projects have already been completed, undermining the entire purpose of environmental oversight. It gets worse. FOFA dramatically expands the size of 'Categorical Exclusions' (CEs), administrative loopholes that allow certain forest projects to dodge public review and environmental study. Under FOFA, logging operations up to 10,000 acres (15 square miles) could move forward without any public input. To put that into perspective, that's roughly the size of more than 7,500 football fields, cleared without so much as a town hall meeting. That's not forest management, that's a corporate giveaway. The bill also advances a deeply flawed narrative: that commercial logging and grazing are effective wildfire mitigation strategies. The science says otherwise. Study after study has shown that the most effective ways to protect communities from wildfire involve local measures, like creating defensible space around homes, hardening buildings against fire, and developing emergency response plans. FOFA includes no funding for these proven strategies. Instead, it funnels energy and attention into large-scale commercial logging, which may actually increase fire risk by removing old-growth trees that are naturally more fire-resistant. Here in Nevada, we understand the value of healthy, resilient ecosystems. Our forests aren't just scenic backdrops. They're critical to our water supplies, our recreation, and our identity. The Fix Our Forests Act threatens that balance. It's a Trojan horse for deregulation, designed to sideline science, slash public involvement, and clear the way for extractive industries. Worse yet, it aligns directly with recent moves by the Trump administration to prioritize timber extraction over environmental stewardship. Just days before FOFA was introduced in the Senate, Trump's Secretary of Agriculture released a memo implementing an executive order to massively expand logging across federal lands. This is the same administration that has gutted staff at the U.S. Forest Service and slashed funding for wildfire prevention. If President Trump and the U.S. Congress truly cared about protecting communities, we'd see investments in firefighter support, forest restoration, and climate resilience, not just more clear-cutting. Instead, his executive order and FOFA combine to create a dangerous one-two punch: under-resourced forest agencies forced to chase arbitrary timber targets, at the expense of meaningful wildfire mitigation. Let's be clear: climate change, not tree density, is the root driver of the catastrophic wildfires we've seen across the West. Rising temperatures, prolonged drought, and increasingly erratic weather patterns are drying out our forests and setting the stage for firestorms. Logging our way out of this problem is not just shortsighted, it's counterproductive. More logging won't bring back the rain. What we need is bold, climate-smart leadership that prioritizes long-term forest health and community safety over short-term industry profits. Unfortunately, Congresswoman Susie Lee (NV-03) and Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02) cosponsored FOFA in the House, and Congressman Steven Horsford (NV-04) voted for the bill. Congresswoman Dina Titus (NV-01) was Nevada's lone 'nay.' The bill will now make its way through the U.S. Senate and Nevada's senators haven't yet revealed how they plan to vote. Whether we're talking about FOFA or Trump's executive orders, the bottom line is the same: this is an attack on our public lands. These are lands that belong to all of us, not just the timber lobby or political donors. Nevada's senators, and senators across the country for that matter, should reject FOFA in its current form. We need our representatives to stop looking at our public lands with dollar signs in their eyes. Instead, they should champion legislation that supports fire-resilient communities through real solutions: funding for home hardening, local emergency planning, defensible space projects, and prescribed fire treatments guided by science and Indigenous knowledge. We need forest policy rooted in stewardship, not exploitation. Nevada deserves better, and so do the forests we all depend on.
San Francisco Chronicle
18-05-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Trump's scapegoating of immigrants ignores the country's real problems
The Trump administration demonizes and dehumanizes immigrants as scapegoats for crime in America. It justifies the attacks against ethnic and religious minorities and their removal without due process or evidence as the only way to protect us from gang violence and criminality. But the statistical analyses show this is a sham. A National Institute of Justice study published in September 2024 found that undocumented immigrants were arrested at half the rate of native born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes, and a quarter of the rate for property crimes President Donald Trump ignores inconvenient facts while disregarding the law by gleefully doing nothing to facilitate the return of a wrongfully deported Maryland father to El Salvador, part of his scare narrative. Facts matter. Immigrants pay taxes and perform work that most of us won't do. Immigrants are not the problem. Trump's false promises to lower prices, resolve Russia's war against Ukraine and his administration's destruction of agencies we need for good governance are the problems. We must not be distracted by gratuitous attacks that do not address this country's needs. David Wiseblood, San Francisco Bill won't fix forests Hiking through groves of redwoods adorned with bouquets of trillium along clear rivers ringing with birdsong from tiny hidden warblers, I felt at times like I was in paradise. But then I'd come upon massive redwood stumps that were cut generations ago, still standing. The fragmented groves of ancient redwoods in our national parks often felt like tree museums. Along the Smith River, Scott River and in the Trinity Alps, I was taken by the rugged landscapes and powerful waters, but overwhelmed by the miles of burned lands. Some places were recovering with green and wildflowers. Others were spoiled by the ravages of salvage logging. If enacted, the Fix Our Forests Act loosens environmental protections and would lead to more logging. We need our California representatives in Congress to oppose this bill and rally their colleagues to defeat it. If not, they will allow the beauty of our forests to be forever turned into the beasts of industry. Cuts are misdirected Regarding 'Newsom floats cuts to undocumented health care as budget deficit looms' (Politics, May 14): Like it or not, undocumented workers are an important tax-paying part of the California economy. Rather than punishing the most vulnerable by denying them the health care we all deserve, Gov. Gavin Newsom should focus on the real villain: President Donald Trump's budget, which seeks to strip Medicaid funding (the major source of Medi-Cal funds) to finance lower taxes for the rich. Tom Miller, Oakland
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fix Our Forests Act would destroy forests without protecting communities
A small pond sits near the Twin Rock Trail in the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. (NPS staff/Peterson/Public domain) Forests are extremely valuable for watersheds, wildlife, carbon storage, recreation and so much more. The deceptively named Fix Our Forests Act, or FOFA, does nothing to conserve forests to retain these values. Instead, it would emphasize logging and otherwise manipulating forests at a scale we haven't seen on public lands for many decades, if ever. The misguided bill has already passed the House, and its Senate version was recently introduced by Colorado's own U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper and other Western senators. FOFA encourages the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which manage most of the federal lands in the Western U.S., to avoid a careful examination of impacts from logging and ways to reduce harms under the National Environmental Policy Act. Under FOFA, projects up to 10,000 acres — over 15 square miles — would be excluded from consideration of possible impacts. The effects to watersheds, wildlife habitat, recreation and scenery would be massive. What's more, the public would have only one chance to provide input for logging projects and could only object in court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX If Fix Our Forests passes, agencies would no longer need to consult about their management plans with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if new threatened or endangered species were listed or critical habitat was designated for them, or even if new information surfaced concerning what action was needed for their recovery to secure populations. This provision could lead to further harm to species already on the edge of continued existence. The use of livestock grazing to reduce the risk of fire would be also encouraged. Grazing can be extremely harmful to fragile ecosystems, especially near streams and lakes. Stock can denude vegetation, leading to invasion by non-native species, such as cheatgrass, which burns easily and readily reestablishes itself after fires. Yet under FOFA, grazing could be used for 'post-fire restoration and recovery,' in spite of adverse impacts. Under recent direction from its Washington office, the U.S. Forest Service would be encouraged to use two methods of approving logging projects that would basically allow loggers to select which trees they want to cut and sell to mills. The largest trees, the ones most valuable for wildlife and storing carbon, would likely be taken. FOFA would even allow logging for the purpose of 'retaining and expanding forest products infrastructure,' i.e., with no other goal than to benefit the logging industry by giving them logs off public lands at taxpayer expense. In the bill, 'high priority hazard trees' would be defined as those likely to fall, which could of course mean almost all trees in the forest. Areas up to 6,000 acres containing such trees within 300 feet of Forest Service roads could be cut with no consideration of impacts. Similarly, trees that could fall within 150 feet of a powerline could be cut with no assessment of possible impacts. Science, much of it researched by the Forest Service, clearly shows the best way to protect houses and other infrastructure is by removing flammable material from the structures and an area no more than 100 feet surrounding them. Cutting our public forests will not protect our communities. We don't need to degrade and destroy forests to save our homes and infrastructure from fire. Our forests need more protection from harmful activities, not less, in order to retain the great benefits they provide for us and other species as well. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
E&E News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
House hearing to revisit wildland fire legislation
A House Natural Resources subcommittee will resume the conversation this week about legislation to use forest management to reduce the risk of wildfires. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations holds a hearing on the 'Fix Our Forests Act,' H.R. 471, which would step up thinning and related work, which sponsors say is key to preventing the worst wildfires. The legislation passed the House in January. A companion bill was recently introduced in the Senate and received support from the Forest Service at a hearing last week. Advertisement Subcommittee Chair Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) has blamed 'forest-rabid environmentalists' for standing in the way of forest management projects that could reduce wildfires, although the organizations say logging sometimes makes forests even more susceptible.
