My question was asked, but they got my name wrong. Oh well… There was a Media Situation That Shouts Watch Out.. the presence of a Union of Concerned Scientists staff person, Julian Reyes, on the panel. UCS isn’t usually into our stuff, but Reyes has experience with USDA climate R&D and at BLM.
Not to pick on him, in this post he quotes another source:
“You cannot move a thirty-year watershed study. You cannot relocate a decades-long old-growth monitoring program. You cannot box up a forest and ship it to Colorado. When these facilities close, the experiments die. The datasets end. The partnerships with universities that took generations to build collapse. And the institutional knowledge of the scientists who ran those programs walks out the door, because the administration damn well knows most of them won’t follow a forced relocation to a single consolidated office that has nothing to do with the ecosystems they’ve spent their careers studying.”
This seems to go back to the idea that all the scientists were going to move to Fort Collins. Which may have been a misunderstanding, but I don’t think that there’s a good reason to post that on April 7, 2026 as he did. Either he’s not paying attention or is overly attached to a talking point (a common DC malady).
*************
Maybe you who listened to the WAMU discussion can help. I’m not the greatest notetaker, but over time AI will be able to help with that.
Labs.. Were there 5 labs with no personnel, 40 of the facilities have 5 people or fewer? They haven’t finalized which ones to close. People are most likely to move to an FS (or other USDA office or lab or university) within commuting distance. It was kind of funny, when the reorg idea (USDA) was first discussed, many folks assumed that all the scientists would have to move to Fort Collins. I think there’s some confusion because Research Stations are not Experimental Forests or even labs, but are the administrative folks that provide useful support functions, do some oversight, and have a set of relationships. They are just like Regions in that respect, but the word Station sounds like a building out there somewhere where researchers work.
WO. As I had heard earlier, many people who “work for the WO” were never in DC to start with. If I copied correctly, 260 are currently physically located in DC, and of these 120 will remain. What will they be doing? Communications, legislative affairs, budget, folks in direct communication with the Hill. And the Associate Chief and the Chief of Staff. The Chief also said he doesn’t spend much time in DC anyway, he spends three out of four weeks traveling around the country talking to people.
So I think that this is important info, especially since there is a whole set of talking points around “you really need some people in DC or ….” but there will be people in DC, so if we were rationale we might ask “what people really need to be there?”. Which is a problem the Minerals staff seems to have solved, last I heard. The Director was there. We can disagree about who should be there, but it’s not exactly a straight line from “120 is not enough or it’s the wrong 120” to “they’re trying to get rid of the FS.” Avey went on about the potential problem, but maybe that was before the Chief answered my question.
Other numbers: Chief mentioned $750 mill budget shortfall in 2024, said 22% of NFs (and Grasslands) had been affected by wildland fire (beneficial or not? how would we know) and 92% of the Mendocino.
Union may litigate over Congress telling the FS that they can’t reorganize. Honestly when I hear this, within an agency, all kinds of separation of powers issues come to mind. Maybe someone knows the report language? I thought teh language was about about the “moving fire out” reorganization, not the other parts.
Many questioners wanted to know how much it would cost. Of course, it depends on what the Union agrees to and whether employees end up moving, or perhaps doing their support or forest work from an existing USDA office in the metro area.
It seems to me that there is a need for a rational discussion on reorganization that’s deeper than “this is the Trump Admin on the path to privatization.” Maybe we can have that discussion here. Plus many of us have concerns that are getting crowded out by the political drama. Sucking all the oxygen out of the room, so to speak.
This is nitpicking, but a nit worth picking, I believe….
On the show, the chief actually misspoke (twice, I believe) when reciting the USFS motto…He said, “Caring for the land and serving the public.”
The correct wording is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.”
I will reserve judgment and further comment…enough said.
Not nitpicking. It’s a fact he has never worked for the FS and it shows, and “… serving the public” is being talked about and laughed at on many platforms. Shultz has worked for FS adversaries and has never been on the side of the federal government. So appointing him Chief was exactly like appointing a fox to guard the henhouse. To the laypersons, I’m sure Shultz comes off as genuine and knowledgeable, tossing around budget numbers and talking about empty buildings. Any valid points he may have will be lost on non-MAGA and most FS employees because we’ve lived through (or retired from) the DOGE chainsaw massacre, have read P2025, and have witnessed the abject corruptness and ineptness of this administration. It is abysmal.
“He never worked for the FS and it shows” wondering if that applies to the former BLM director?
I noticed that too.. someone here probably knows the history and currency of that motto.
“…gutting the [USDA]”
“…spreading staff to the winds…”
“…irreversibly destructive”
“…imminent threat”
“Nobody Wants This”
No thanks…I get enough of that on Facebook.
I did listen to the show and found that it to be interesting and informative. So, it seems that it is not entirely clear where the research people will be going, is that correct? The message is, don’t worry we’ll figure that out later. Do I have that right? But they have identified the offices that will be closing. Just to take one example that I am somewhat familiar with, Research has an office in Rapid City. They are located at the end of the Mystic Ranger District Office. This District Office is owned by the Forest Service and will remain the District Office after the Research people leave. Except now, they will have empty office space at that end of the building. Maintenance costs will still be there. Where will they go? I cannot think of anywhere else in commuting distance that is anything better than where they are at now. Does this make sense?
The Chief did mention that he travels 3 weeks out of the month. How interesting. So, he does not have a problem getting out to the various places around the country. Why does he need an office in SLC? I just do not buy the explanation that some of the people in DC will be closer to the Forests and this will be so much better. Really? Apparently, the Chief does not have any problem getting out. So, it’s worth spending the money to relocate and upend all of these employees for what exactly? The Chief mentioned that they have to pay rent on the Yates building. What are they moving into in SLC? Most likely a leased building. Are the remaining people in DC moving out of Yates? Where will they go?
I really would like to see a cost analysis of what this will all cost and what it will purportedly save. Have they done an actual workforce analysis? It just seems like this is a solution in search of a problem. To date, I have not heard a coherent argument for all of this and didn’t hear it on this show.
Lastly, the Chief had a difficult time when Bill Avey confronted him on the President’s 2027 budget for the FS. Of course, it is a train wreck if it actually happens and the Chief knows it. But he had to tap dance around and say that Congress gets the final word. In other words, he’s hoping Congress saves him. Now, I know that this stuff happens every year and the final budget usually turns out to not be so drastic. However, I think this initial President’s budget is way worse than anything I remember. It has drastic cuts to FS staffing and yet, the Chief says there will be no RIF and no one will be let go. Ok.
In reality, I am sure they have some kind of an estimate of how many people will not take a directed reassignment and what the cost savings would be. They would have to have some kind of idea of that and are probably counting on that to help save them dollars.
Listening to several interviews with the Chief, it is clear to me that he wants the States to play a much bigger role in the management of the Forests. Maybe not a transfer of ownership, although I wouldn’t rule it out. In the FS talking points they say, “That hasn’t been discussed”, not, “That will not happen”. So, it seems like they don’t want to take it off the table.
55 of the 77 Research Stations are marked for obliteration. Shultz says they can be housed at Universities and other campuses. That may work for a select few but it’s not as easy as he makes it sound. I have little hope that the agency will be recognizable in another year. Yes, changes needed to be made, but not in this way by such incompetent toadies.
On the Hotshot Wakeup when they interviewed Chris French (Associate Chief) about the reorganization, he mentioned that the reorganization strategizing started in 2024 when they identified the budget shortfall and involved regional foresters and other FS Staff. The impression that I got was that much of the reorganization that is being proposed came from within the FS, but that could be wrong?
I listened to that as well and noticed when Chris French said that. I find that believable and don’t have a reason to doubt him. It would be nice to know how that process worked and who all were involved. Was a document produced? If so, will it be made public? Maybe The Smokey Wire should file a FOIA requesting any documents associated with the planning of this reorganization. It could be revealing. It is true that the Forest Service got themselves in a pickle with overspending under the Biden Administration. Secretary Vilsack should have told the Forest Service that they need to figure this out. Totally believable that he did. If the Regional Foresters were in on this effort, I find it somewhat hard to believe that they supported the demise of the Regional Offices. Typically, they totally look out for the Regional Offices. Maybe they’re hoping for a State Director position. Same pay, less responsibility (I assume they will be SES).
The problem that I see is, Schultz has not told us how this reorganization will solve the Forest Service’s budget issues. Instead, he makes empty comments on how it will save money. Mostly on facilities. However, by his own admission, he does not even know where most of these affected people will go. Do they even have a facility in SLC identified? He has not come up with any numbers or even estimates of what this will cost or save. Forgive me for being skeptical.
I already filed a FOIA (great minds think alike, or at least our minds think alike) on the results of the Salt Lake meeting (report) and any teams that came out of it. That might not be specific enough, so if anyone wants to direct me to specific document titles, that would be helpful.
I’m not sure that the “FS got themselves into a pickle” so much as the Admin told them to spend all the bucks before Congress could rescind the IRA largesse. The Admin apparently knew and didn’t care. AS I recall, Chief Moore mentioned “the election” in his talk in Missoula as being a factor.
I agree on the need for a rational discussion. There seems to be a lot of lingering misinformation- all scientists moving to Fort Collins, etc. there are definitely research facilities with very few people assigned to them. I worked with scientists at 2 of those facilities.
As for beneficial fire, that is reported and is part of the TCA/Terrestrial Condition Assessment. https://terrestrial-condition-assessment-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/
I am really not understanding why, given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, that I keep getting the feeling that it is being suggested that this is could all be being done with the best intentions and we should just give it a chance? The head of OPM literally stated he wants to traumatize federal employees. Project 2025 has been the playbook and is all about privatization. I am happy to have a discussion about what a reorg should look like, but my Trump derangement syndrome, which there are many of us suffering from, is triggered anytime I get a whiff of it being suggested that we should give the administration the benefit of the doubt. It is my experience that “calm down” almost never has the intended effect.
A. – as a long term Swamp Adjacent creature, each part of an Admin has different views about different things. And so does Congress. So the head of OPM, whatever his beliefs, has to duke it out with department heads who probably have more interest in other things.
I remember thinking as a young employee during the Reagan Admin “if he thinks we’re so lousy, why should we fight fires on his ranch?” This is not a new thing.
It’s fine for you to have TDS. I give every Admin the benefit of the doubt, and am skeptical of all Admins. I’m not going to try to change your views. I’m just presenting, as faithfully as I can, what the picture is, what people say, and what actually happens as it becomes clearer.
“Benefit of the doubt” means to choose to believe someone or something is honest, innocent, or correct, even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise or when you are not sure. It is the act of treating someone with trust, giving them a fair chance, and assuming the best rather than the worst. (AI overview)
I think Anonymous makes an excellent point – there is no reason to believe this administration is honest or innocent. They’ve had their fair chance and proved otherwise, and they have earned the disrespect and lack of trust we are fortunately seeing here.
“Derangement refers to a state of disorder, confusion, or disruption of normal functioning. It is often used to describe a serious mental disturbance or insanity,..” (AI overview).
So-called “TDS” really refers to a return to normal function after being duped into derangement about Trump (TDS would be a more appropriate diagnosis for these people.)
We still don’t know what the plan is for SPTF.
Good question. I’ll send it to the Press Office.
Trying to be open minded but it’s hard after spending so many years with the “outfit”. I think much of the reorganization could work if they would just fund the agency to do the job. But as I understand it, the “state” directors or whatever they are called will be political appointees. Fifteen of them I believe. Instead of putting the supervision closer to the ground, this simply puts the politics closer to the ground to micromanage according to political belief. This part will never work. Land management is a long term process if done correctly and not very effective if the values change every four years.
Sharon said:
“Union may litigate over Congress telling the FS that they can’t reorganize.”
The relevant legal reference I’ve seen in the press is to section 505 of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2026. To save space I’ll quote the key language here. The whole thing appears at
https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ74/PLAW-119publ74.pdf at pdf p. 46.
“None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act … shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that: … (5) reorganizes or renames offices, programs, or activities; … unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 30 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.”
It’s that last phrase that makes this prohibition not very prohibitive after all. Section 505 does not specify any particular mechanism that the agency must follow in notifying the appropriations committees. The committees have probably been notified as a practical matter because, well, we all have been notified via the press for months. In any case, all the agency would probably have to do is send letters or emails; a text might even be sufficient. Agency budget officials are in contact with appropriations committee staff throughout the year – it’s difficult to believe this topic never came up.
There is some awkwardness here which perhaps came up during the WAMU broadcast (I haven’t listened yet). The Forest Service’s budget justifications for FY 26 and 27 discuss the pending reorganization … not at all, not one word.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-fy27-congressional-budget-justification.pdf
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-fy26-congressional-budget-justification.pdf
These are peculiar omissions for such a seemingly significant internal agency initiative. Perhaps the agency has concluded that the reorganization is budget neutral and therefore of no budgetary interest, but as Dave pointed out above, at this point we have no evidence that the agency has carried out any such analysis.
So perhaps a litigant could use these omissions as evidence that the agency failed to carry out the notifications required by section 505, but I doubt many judges would read section 505 that narrowly. (And, as always, the “standing” monster lurks under the bed.) There may be other legal restrictions on the agency’s reorganization, but I think section 505 probably isn’t one of them.
All that said, I am *not* offering anyone legal advice here – consult an attorney with relevant expertise (first checking with your union rep if applicable) if you are considering challenging the agency’s reorganization actions.
Rich, many thanks for digging into this!
https://whowhatwhy.org/science/environment/forest-service-reorganization-is-illegal-usda-lawyer-told-them-to-do-it-anyway/
(Source is considered left-leaning, but mostly reliable.)
This says: “Two laws. Both signed by the president. Both prohibiting exactly what the administration announced on March 31. Both requiring advance approval that was never obtained.” Approval? They are looking at Section 421, not 505: “SEC. 421. None of the funds made available in this Act, in this and prior fiscal years, may be reprogrammed without the advance notification and approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the reprogramming procedures contained in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).”
Bigger picture:
“Vaden and Clarkson had proven their concept. Defy Congress. Cite Chadha. Call the law unconstitutional. Move fast enough that the damage is done before anyone can stop you. Then dare Congress to do something about it.”
“If Clarkson’s reasoning holds, it doesn’t just void these two parts of a spending bill. It voids every appropriations rider, every reprogramming restriction, every spending condition Congress has ever attached to any bill. The power of the purse becomes a suggestion. The constitutional architecture that gives the Legislature control over federal spending completely collapses.”
Interesting – the reprogramming guidelines apparently at issue appear here:
https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2026/01/08/172/5/CREC-2026-01-08-bk3.pdf
at pdf p.218. The agency’s appearent failure to disclose the reorganization in its budget justifications perhaps now looms a bit larger.
Standing may still be a hurdle – the following 2004 federal district court case illustrates some of the difficulties a private plaintiff may encounter in enforcing an appropriations law restriction:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/338/1135/2332762/
especially pp 1143-48. The facts under the reorganization will be different, but some judges will be skeptical of private lawsuits seeking to defend Congressional prerogatives.
The constitutional legal arguments the article discusses are, imho, pretty silly. But there is an underlying political reality that is harder to dismiss. It is indeed up to Congress in the first instance to defend its own spending restrictions, not some random (or even not so random) set of citizens. Federal agencies have in the past generally adhered to approriations law restrictions because they feared the political and budgetary consequences of not doing so. For reasons that need no elaboration here, the agencies have, for the moment at least, largely lost that fear.
If maintenance of the constitutional structure depends not on Congress protecting itself but rather on a handful of private litigants skillful enough to navigate a complex judicial maze, then our nation is very far down a very dark road. Some judges might look at this situation and, without relying on those ludicrous Chadha arguments, essentially say this is a problem for Congress to solve, and if Congress doesn’t grow a pair that is not the judicial branch’s problem.
But I don’t see them as reprogramming between those BLI’s? Maybe it’s in the fine print.
I don’t recommend looking over this document.. so much pork in the interests of “science”…
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
The bill provides $780,000 for the Office of
the Under Secretary for Natural Resources
and Environment.
FOREST SERVICE
FOREST SERVICE OPERATIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The bill provides $1,090,600,000 for Forest
Service Operations. The detailed allocation
of funding by activity is included in the
table accompanying this explanatory state-
ment.
FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH
The bill provides $308,697,000 for Forest and
Rangeland Research. The detailed allocation
of funding by activity is included in the
table accompanying this explanatory state-
ment.
Research and Development.—The agreement
includes $61,500,000 for Research and Develop-
ment, including the following research prior-
ities, for which funding of geographically-
based items is in addition to funds otherwise
provided to individual research units and
therefore is not to be factored into base allo-
cations:
—$1,000,000 to support Remote Automated
Weather Stations (RAWS) for the Forest
Service and its interagency partners to con-
duct a coverage analysis including factors
such as recent National Fire Danger Rating
System upgrades and proposals to determine
a more appropriate network coverage.
—$1,000,000 for the Forest Service to utilize
an existing partnership with a public re-
search university in a fire prone, western
state with proximity to the National Inter-
agency Fire Center to develop AI-based wild-
fire activity forecasting and modeling tools.
—$2,000,000 for the National Agroforestry
Center.
—$3,000,000 to the Joint Fire Science pro-
gram, which combined with funding in the
Department of the Interior provides
$6,000,000 in total.
University Research.—The Committees reit-
erate support for the language included in
House Report 119–215 related to partnering
with a university in the South on new and
existing research focusing on advancing sus-
tainable forestry practices, innovating wood-
based materials, wood testing, synthetics,
and enhancing the economic impact of for-
est-related industries.
PROGRAM FUNDING FOR FOREST AND RANGELAND
RESEARCH
[In thousands of dollars]
Program Funding Amount
Research and Development Programs ………………. $61,500
Research and Development Programs, North-
eastern States Research Cooperative …………… 6,000
Research and Development Programs, Forest-
Based Cellulose Nanomaterials …………………… 2,000
Research and Development Programs, Glacier
Outburst Monitoring Capacity and Flood Risk
Mitigation …………………………………………………. 1,500
Research and Development Programs, Wildfire
and Watersheds …………………………………………. 4,000
Research and Development Programs, Wildland
Urban Interface Workforce Development ……….. 3,000
Research and Development Programs, Northwest
Wildland and Rangeland Fire Science Consor-
tium …………………………………………………………. 2,000
Research and Development Programs, Biomass
Commercialization ……………………………………… 1,500
Research and Development Programs, Outbreak
Timber Salvage Research ……………………………. 500
Research and Development Programs, Pacific
Northwest Fish Modeling …………………………….. 500
Research and Development Programs, Needle
Blight Mitigation ……………………………………….. 1,000
Salaries and Expenses ……………………………………. 212,000
STATE, PRIVATE, AND TRIBAL FORESTRY
The bill provides $310,594,000 for State, Pri-
vate, and Tribal Forestry. The detailed allo-
cation of funding by activity is included in
the table accompanying this explanatory
statement. All funding for specific programs,
directives, or congressionally directed spend-
ing identified herein is in addition to funds
otherwise provided to States and regions
through the formula and competitive grant
process and therefore is not to be factored
into those allocations.
International Programs and Trade.—The
Committees expect the Service to continue
an intact program office reporting directly
to the Chief of the Forest Service, for serv-
ing as the lead entity and coordinating all
activities related to the Lacey Act and the
protection of the American wood trade.
PROGRAM FUNDING FOR STATE, PRIVATE, AND TRIBAL
FORESTRY
[In thousands of dollars]
Program Funding Amount
Forest Health Management ……………………………… $58,000
Forest Health Management, Forest Ecosystem
Monitoring Cooperative ……………………………….. 1,000
Forest Health Management, Sudden Oak Death … 2,000
Forest Health Management, Spruce Budworm …… 10,000
Forest Health Management, Lake Tahoe Forest
Health Management …………………………………… 250
Cooperative Fire Assistance …………………………….. 97,000
State Fire Capacity Grants, Lake Tahoe State Fire
Capacity ……………………………………………………. 2,125
Cooperative Forestry, Community Forest and Open
Space Conservation ……………………………………. 5,500
Cooperative Forestry, Urban and Community For-
estry …………………………………………………………. 37,000
International Programs and Trade …………………… 19,000
Salaries and Expenses ……………………………………. 50,000
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
The bill provides $1,857,843,000 for the Na-
tional Forest System. The detailed alloca-
tion of funding by activity is included in the
table accompanying this explanatory state-
ment.
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness.—The
agreement includes $45,000,000 for Recre-
ation, Heritage, and Wilderness, including
$750,000 for the maintenance of rural air
strips and $500,000 to support infrastructure
and trails development.
Hazardous Fuels.—The bill provides
$176,850,000 for hazardous fuels activities.
Funding for the Southwest Ecological Res-
toration Institutes includes $1,400,000 to cre-
ate a new institute in the State of Nevada
consistent with the direction in House Re-
port 119–215.
Wildlife and Fish Habitat Management.—The
agreement includes $21,000,000 for Wildlife
and Fish Habitat Management, including no
less than $2,000,000 for threatened and endan-
gered species activities.
PROGRAM FUNDING FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
[In thousands of dollars]
Program Funding Amount
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness, NATIVE Act
Implementation ………………………………………….. $1,000
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness, National
Recreation Areas (PL 105–277, PL 109–382,
PL 111–11) ……………………………………………….. 3,000
Vegetation and Watershed Management, Lake
Tahoe Vegetation and Watershed ………………… 6,175
Hazardous Fuels, Lake Tahoe Hazardous Fuels …. 5,529
Hazardous Fuels, Community Wood Energy ……….. 15,000
Hazardous Fuels, Wood Innovation Grants ………… 30,000
Hazardous Fuels, Southwest Ecological Restora-
tion Institutes ……………………………………………. 8,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill provides $153,250,000 for Capital
Improvement and Maintenance programs.
Trails.—The agreement provides $22,000,000
for Trails, including $2,000,000 for trail main-
tenance needs within National Forests in
States and territories outside the conti-
nental United States.
Construction Projects.—The bill provides
$20,850,000 for congressionally directed spend-
ing in this program. A detailed list of
VerDate Sep 11 2014 01:13 Jan 12, 2026 Jkt 069060 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A08JA7.075 H08JAPT3
DMWilson on DSK7X7S144PROD with HOUSE-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H483January 8, 2026
projects is included in the ‘‘Interior and En-
vironment Incorporation of Community
Project Funding Items/Congressionally Di-
rected Spending Items’’ table accompanying
this explanatory statement.
ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS
SPECIAL ACTS
The bill provides $664,000 for the Acquisi-
tion of Lands for National Forests Special
Acts.
ACQUISITION OF LANDS TO COMPLETE LAND
EXCHANGES
The bill provides $150,000 for the Acquisi-
tion of Lands to Complete Land Exchanges.
RANGE BETTERMENT FUND
The bill provides $1,719,000 for the Range
Betterment Fund.
GIFTS, DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS FOR FOREST
AND RANGELAND RESEARCH
The bill provides $45,000 for Gifts, Dona-
tions and Bequests for Forest and Rangeland
Research.
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS FOR
SUBSISTENCE USES
The bill provides $1,099,000 for the Manage-
ment of National Forest Lands for Subsist-
ence Uses.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The bill provides $2,426,111,000 for Forest
Service Wildland Fire Management, includ-
ing amounts to support continued execution
of the new pay table authorized by Public
Law 119–4 as a permanent fix to ensure the
Federal agencies’ ability to recruit and re-
tain wildland firefighters and maintain cur-
rent firefighting capacity. The detailed allo-
cation of funding by activity is included in
the table accompanying this explanatory
statement.
WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS RESERVE
FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
The bill includes $2,480,000,000 for the Wild-
fire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund
The explanatory statement linked above defines reprogramming in more detail than the standard definition, which is simply moving money from one authorized purpose within a lump sum appropriation to another (and which, it should be noted, is generally allowed). I agree with the article Jon cited that the reprogramming limit in the law seems to be aimed pretty directly at large-scale reorganizations of the kind the FS is contemplating.
That said, there’s an other potential legal hurdle to challenging the reorg in court under the reprogramming guidelines. What relief would a court award? Perhaps the court would enjoin reorganization actions until the FS notifies the approps committees as the guidelines direct – which could take less than a day. This kind of injunction would not help any reorg opponents much. I don’t see a court permanently enjoining the reorganization because of a notification failure.
The agency may have other legal vulnerabilities, and the approps committees will have a chance to weigh in on all this as they consider FY 27 approps legislation. Despite my diatribe earlier in this thread, I think there is at least a small chance the committees will ultimately reduce or eliminate funding for the reorganization. I’m just not sure that the reprogramming guidelines alone are enough to substantially hinder that effort.
Another confusing thing to me is that there are “reorganization” lumpers and splitters.
“Reorganization” could mean…
1.getting rid of Regions, substituting State Directors
2. getting rid of Stations, handling admin of research to one overall WO team.
3. closing facilities
and/or
4. moving fire folks to Interior
5. moving the FS to Interior.
My guess from the past is that individual Congressfolk can care deeply about individual facilities on their Districts, and probably care a great deal about 4 and 5. Historically they haven’t dabbled much in such things as 1 and 2. However it has been a long time since the FS has done that, and it was more piecemeal then, so who knows what they will be interested in this time?
Not sure, but I seem to recall that the annual Interior approps bill used to include a rider either restricting or prohibiting RO closures, but at some point that provision dropped out of the bill.
And yes, I suspect the approps committee members in particular will be looking closely at how the reorg affects (either positively or negatively) their districts. That may go a long way to determining whether Congress weighs in.