HB1459 would establish the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund in the Treasury to finance restoration and resilience projects on federal and non-federal lands. The Act creates a grant program and a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program, overseen by a Restoration Fund Advisory Council and subject to Inspector General oversight.
It defines eligible entities and sets funding mechanics, including pay-for-performance contracts and the option to accept non-federal contributions.
The Fund totals $60 billion in appropriations: $20 billion for the grant program and $40 billion for the Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program, with not less than $20 billion earmarked for restoration and resilience on Federal land. The bill emphasizes complementing existing conservation programs, accelerating restoration, building local outdoor economies, and creating jobs, while limiting duplicative effects and ensuring accountability through governance and reporting.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund and directs the Secretary to administer two programs: a grant program for capacity building and project implementation, and a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program for designated areas, with funding and oversight by the Council and Inspector General.
Who It Affects
Affects State and local governments, Tribal governments, regional entities, special districts, and nonprofits that can apply for grants or contracts to carry out restoration and resilience projects on Federal or non-Federal land.
Why It Matters
Creates a unified funding and governance framework to scale restoration, reduce wildfire risk, improve watersheds and wildlife habitat, and expand equitable outdoor access, while aligning with existing authorities and programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill creates a dedicated funding stream—the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund—to finance restoration and resilience projects on both Federal and non-Federal lands. It defines who can apply (States, local governments, Tribes, regional bodies, special districts, and nonprofits) and lays out two key programs: a Grant Program and a Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program.
The Grant Program provides capacity-building and project-implementation funds, potentially through pay-for-performance contracts, with waivers available for lower-capacity or underserved groups. The Partnership Program designates partnership areas and funds projects in collaboration with State, Tribal, and local stakeholders to address wildfire risk, habitat, water quality, and outdoor access.
Governance is built around a Restoration Fund Advisory Council, which advises on distributions, landscape prioritization, and monitoring. An Inspector General report, due within a year of enactment and annually thereafter, reviews fund use and any misuse.
The Act also authorizes the Treasury to accept non-Federal contributions to the Fund and requires the funding to supplement, not replace, existing federal and non-federal programs. The legislation emphasizes interagency flexibility and coordination with states, Tribes, and local partners to accelerate outcomes and maximize job creation in outdoor and restoration-related fields.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act creates the Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund in the Treasury with a total of $60 billion.
$20 billion is for the grant program and $40 billion for the Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program (with at least $20B for Federal land projects).
The bill defines a broad set of “covered authorities” to enable cross-program funding for restoration and resilience projects.
A two-program structure—grants (capacity and implementation) and a partnership program (designated areas with priority projects)—drives on-the-ground work.
An independent Inspector General report and a 12-member Advisory Council provide oversight and guidance on project selection, performance, and coordination with multiple stakeholders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section spells out key terms used throughout the bill, including Council (Restoration Fund Advisory Council), covered authorities (a long list of existing conservation and restoration programs), ecological integrity (as defined by the applicable CFR), eligible entity (States, tribes, local governments, regions, special districts, nonprofits), fund, grant program, restoration, and restoration and resilience project (projects designed to measurably improve forest conditions, rangeland health, watershed function, or wildlife habitat). The definitions tie the bill’s funding to existing authorities and establish the scope of eligible projects and participants.
Outdoor and Watershed Restoration Fund Establishment
Section 3 creates the Fund in the Treasury and clarifies its purpose: to finance the grant program and the Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program. It requires the Fund’s use to be transparent and coordinated with the Council, and it emphasizes that activities should complement rather than replace existing conservation and resilience programs. It also describes savings provisions to ensure consistency with applicable laws and authorities and clarifies that funds will supplement, not supplant, other funding.
Restoration Fund Advisory Council
This section establishes the council to advise on fund disbursement, landscape priority, and monitoring. It lays out membership: the Secretary plus 12 appointed members representing resource-dependent industries, natural-resource restoration and economic development experts, conservation groups, a State government representative, a local government representative, a Tribal representative, and optionally representatives from other Federal agencies. The council must also assist in reporting to Congress on project status and cross-cutting coordination.
Restoration and Resilience Grant Program
The grant program aims to increase capacity for planning, coordinating, and monitoring restoration on non-Federal land and to support collaboration on Federal land. It authorizes two grant types: capacity grants (including pay-for-performance contracts) and implementation grants, with matching requirements and waivers as appropriate to support lower-capacity or underserved communities. Priority is given to projects that create jobs, link to social-ecological restoration science, and expand equitable outdoor access, among other criteria.
Restoration and Resilience Partnership Program
This section creates a separate program to carry out restoration and resilience projects in designated partnership areas. It provides criteria for designating partnership areas (wildfire risk, wildlife habitat priorities, wildland-urban interface considerations) and directs implementation of projects in coordination with Federal land managers and eligible entities. Projects must follow applicable laws, use existing authorities where possible, and exclude certain actions (e.g., permanent roads, wilderness restrictions) to protect values and ecosystems. The section also outlines coordination and measurement requirements for success.
Oversight
Section 7 requires the Inspector General to report within a year of enactment and annually thereafter on fund usage and any misuse related to the grant program and the Partnership Program. The report is intended for the Agriculture and Appropriations committees in both Senate and House, ensuring formal congressional oversight of how funds are used and whether authorities are being applied properly.
Funding
This section appropriates $60 billion for the Fund, to remain available until expended: $20 billion for the grant program and $40 billion for the Partnership Program, with at least $20 billion allocated for on-Federal land projects. It also authorizes the use of funds for staffing and other workforce needs related to administering the programs, reinforcing that the appropriation supports administration as well as project execution.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and regional land management agencies gain new funding and a structured process to implement restoration and resilience projects.
- Tribal governments gain access to funding and designated partnership opportunities to restore forest and watershed health on Tribal lands and in Indian Country.
- Local governments and special districts in priority landscapes receive capacity and implementation grants to protect communities from wildfire and improve outdoor access.
- Conservation, wildlife, and watershed organizations can participate as eligible entities or partners, helping coordinate large-scale restoration.
- Outdoor recreation and rural economies benefit from job creation and expanded access to restored landscapes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal taxpayers provide the core appropriation of $60 billion to establish and sustain the Fund.
- Eligible entities may be required to provide matching funds as part of grant applications, though waivers are available for lower-capacity or underserved communities.
- Federal agencies and inspectors bear ongoing administrative and oversight costs to manage funding, monitoring, and reporting.
- There is a possibility of reduced funding pressure on other programs if this Fund substitutes some activities, though the bill states it should complement, not replace, existing authorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is how to push restoration and resilience forward quickly using a large, multi-authority funding mechanism while maintaining clear accountability, avoiding program overlap, and ensuring meaningful collaboration with diverse stakeholders across Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments.
The bill creates ambitious cross-agency funding and multi-stakeholder collaboration, which will require careful coordination to avoid duplication with existing programs. It leans heavily on the designated partnership areas and a broad set of authorities, which could lead to jurisdictional ambiguity if not well aligned with state, Tribal, and local plans.
While it seeks to prioritize wildfire risk reduction, habitat improvements, and equitable outdoor access, implementation—especially on non-Federal lands—depends on the willingness and capacity of eligible entities to compete for grants and meet reporting requirements. Finally, the balance between rapid deployment and rigorous measurement will be tested as projects scale up across diverse landscapes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.