House Bill 2653 would authorize counties to enter into shared stewardship agreements with federal land management agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, to maintain and manage fuel breaks on federally owned land near roads
Legislation sponsored by Rep. Kevin Waters would give Washington counties new tools to reduce wildfire risk along major roadways while ensuring local governments are fairly compensated for their work managing federal forestlands.
House Bill 2653 would authorize counties to enter into shared stewardship agreements with federal land management agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, to maintain and manage fuel breaks on federally owned land near roads. Under the bill, counties could manage forestlands up to one mile on either side of a roadway, including interstate highways, state highways, and other roads selected by the county.
“Wildfires don’t stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and counties are often on the front lines of prevention and response,” said Waters, R-Stevenson. “This bill would ensure counties can be real partners in forest management while also protecting taxpayers and critical transportation corridors.”
While shared stewardship agreements already exist at the federal level, Waters said many of those programs fail to allow counties to share in revenue generated from forest management activities. HB 2653 would address that gap by requiring any shared stewardship agreement entered into by a county to include a revenue-sharing provision. Under the bill, counties would retain proceeds from timber sales resulting from fuel reduction and forest health work performed under the agreement.
“For rural counties, timber revenue has declined sharply over the years, and federal forest payments are less reliable than they once were,” Waters said. “At the same time, counties are being asked to do more to prevent catastrophic wildfires, and much of the timber they cut down is going to waste. This bill would balance those responsibilities by allowing counties to recoup some of the costs through responsible timber management.”
The legislation would especially benefit rural counties with large amounts of federal forestland. By allowing counties to retain timber sale proceeds, the bill could help stabilize local budgets, support essential county services, and ease financial pressure on rural school districts affected by the loss of traditional timber revenues.
“This is about smarter forest management, safer communities, and stronger partnerships between local and federal governments,” Waters said. “House Bill 2653 would move us in that direction.”
The bill awaits a public hearing in the House Local Government Committee.
Information provided by the Washington State House Republicans, houserepublicans.wa.gov
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘Washington’s majority party is panicking’
Nancy Churchill argues that controversial state policies, including new taxes, law enforcement changes, and agency power grabs, are generating a wave of backlash in communities across Washington. - Letter: ‘Now we have Engineer Bob telling us the I-5 Bridge needs replacing because it is built on shifting sand with wooden structures’
Amboy resident Thomas Schenk critiques Democrat leadership, tax policies, and the addition of light rail to the I-5 Bridge, while urging Republican voters to participate more in midterm elections. - The I-5 Bridge is vulnerable to collapse, but apparently not that vulnerable
State leaders and Vancouver’s mayor warn about bridge safety, but insist it’s safe enough for daily use as they focus on moving forward with a costly replacement including light rail—despite decades of public resistance. - Opinion: ‘This is not the best and most efficient use of the taxpayers’ funds’
Ken Vance critiques the announced $14.4 billion I-5 Bridge replacement, questioning funding gaps, the insistence on light rail, unaddressed congestion, and transparency from state officials. - Cost for IBR’s total project ‘most likely’ to be $14.4 billion
Washington’s governor committed to a light rail bridge across the Columbia River, prioritizing the $7.65 billion initial phase while sidestepping the full project’s $14.4 billion price tag.
