The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive study of existing federal programs, rules, and authorities that enable or hinder wildfire mitigation across land ownership boundaries on both Federal and non-Federal land. The study will map where current authorities allow or constrain cross-boundary actions and identify gaps that limit coordinated mitigation efforts.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Comptroller General must examine federal programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit wildfire mitigation across land ownership boundaries and assess potential changes that would improve capacity or access to funding for federal land management agencies, NRCS, DHS, USFA, states, local governments, and Tribal governments.
Who It Affects
Federal land management agencies (as defined in HFRA), the Department of Agriculture (through NRCS), the Department of Homeland Security (FEMA, USFA), States, local governments, and Tribal governments—along with non-federal landowners who participate in cross-boundary mitigation.
Why It Matters
Mitigating wildfires that cross ownership boundaries requires coordinated funding and authorities. The study aims to pinpoint barriers and propose practical changes to enable more effective, cross-jurisdictional action.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directs a targeted study by the Comptroller General to examine how current programs and laws affect wildfire mitigation when fires cross property lines between Federal and non-Federal land. It asks whether adjusting these authorities could expand the funding and operational capacity available to federal land managers, the NRCS, DHS, FEMA and USFA, as well as state, local, and Tribal governments involved in cross-boundary mitigation.
The analysis will also consider the activities authorized under section 103(e) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, focusing on whether those activities can be made more effective and whether they have increased access to funding for mitigation. Finally, the bill requires the GAO to deliver a report within two years of enactment to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, outlining the study results and offering recommendations to simplify cross-boundary wildfire mitigation across jurisdictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires a GAO study of existing federal programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit cross-boundary wildfire mitigation on Federal and non-Federal land.
The study will assess how changes to those authorities could increase capacity or access to funding for federal land management agencies, NRCS, DHS, USFA, states, local governments, and Tribal governments.
It will examine activities under Healthy Forests Restoration Act section 103(e) for their efficacy and impact on funding access for cross-boundary mitigation.
A comprehensive GAO report is due within 2 years of enactment to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, with recommendations for simplification.
The analysis will aim to identify practical barriers and propose concrete, actionable steps to improve cross-boundary wildfire mitigation coordination.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section designates the act’s official title as the Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act. It provides the legal reference for citation and establishes the bill’s branding for intergovernmental coordination and future policy work.
Study on cross-boundary wildfire mitigation
Section 2 directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study of the existing Federal programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit wildfire mitigation across land ownership boundaries on Federal and non-Federal land. It requires the study to evaluate whether changes to those authorities could expand capacity or access to funding for federal land management agencies (as defined in HFRA), the Secretary of Agriculture via the NRCS, the Secretary of Homeland Security via FEMA and the U.S. Fire Administration, as well as States, local governments, and Tribal governments. The section also considers the activities under HFRA section 103(e) to assess efficacy and funding access, and it directs the GAO to consider how those activities influence cross-boundary mitigation.
Reporting requirement
Not later than two years after enactment, the Comptroller General must submit a report to the Committee on Natural Resources (House) and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Senate). The report must present the study results and provide recommendations to simplify cross-boundary wildfire mitigation between Federal land management agencies and State, local, and Tribal governments.
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
- Federal land management agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service) would gain clearer authorities and potential funding options to support cross-boundary mitigation.
- State governments with wildfire management responsibilities would benefit from clarified pathways and funding mechanisms to coordinate with federal partners on cross-boundary efforts.
- Local governments situated along land ownership boundaries would benefit from improved access to funding and streamlined coordination for mitigation projects.
- Tribal governments with adjacent lands would benefit from better alignment of funding and intergovernmental processes to support cross-boundary mitigation.
- Non-federal landowners who participate in cross-boundary mitigation projects would benefit from clearer funding opportunities and cooperative frameworks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies may incur administrative or policy-change costs to adjust authorizations, reporting requirements, and coordination mechanisms prompted by the study’s findings.
- State and local governments may face additional coordination and administrative costs to engage with new or clarified programs and to meet reporting or partnership obligations.
- Tribal governments may need to allocate resources to participate in cross-boundary mitigation planning and implementation under revised authorities.
- Non-federal landowners could bear costs related to alignment with new coordination requirements or participation in mitigation programs.
- The GAO and related agencies will require funding to conduct the mandated study, review data, and prepare the final report.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between the desire to streamline cross-boundary wildfire mitigation through shared funding and authorities and the reality of diverse jurisdictional regimes, funding rules, and sovereignty concerns across federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
The bill focuses on commissioning a study rather than imposing new funding or mandatory cross-boundary actions today. The central challenge it highlights is intergovernmental coordination across multiple authorities and funding streams that operate under different statutory frameworks.
Implementing any recommendations from the GAO report would likely require subsequent legislation or budgetary action, and would depend on cooperation among federal agencies, states, localities, and tribes. Data gaps, jurisdictional boundaries, and the diversity of land ownership complicate a one-size-fits-all solution.
The act leaves open questions about how best to implement reforms while preserving local control and respecting tribal sovereignty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.