4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Dec 15, 2025)

Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 reflect the bill's procedural progression from being passed by the House to being received and referred in the Senate, including an updated attestation. There are no substantive policy changes to the legislative text itself.

H.R. 1045119th CongressIntroduced Feb 6, 2025

Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025

Passed HousePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3]
Committees: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Dec 16, 2025

Bottom line

The bill expands an existing federal program for wildfire research and prevention to include Utah, allowing for the potential establishment of a new institute in the state.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to include the State of Utah among the states where a Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Institute can be established. Currently, the Act allows for Institutes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. This amendment expands the geographic scope of the program to address wildfire prevention and forest health issues in Utah.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that including Utah in the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act is a critical step to address the increasing threat of wildfires in the state. They contend that a dedicated institute would foster research, develop localized prevention strategies, and enhance collaboration among federal, state, and local entities, ultimately protecting communities and natural resources from devastating fires.

Opponents contend

Opponents, if any, might raise concerns about the expansion of federal programs and potential costs associated with establishing and maintaining an additional institute, particularly if existing resources are already stretched. However, given the focused nature and generally recognized importance of wildfire prevention, strong organized opposition to this specific expansion is unlikely.

The bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its full scope and implications within minutes.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)

Inclusion of Utah in Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 5(b)(2) and Section 5(e)(1) of the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004. Specifically, it adds 'the State of Utah' to the list of states where a Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Institute may be established. This means Utah would become eligible to host or participate in an institute dedicated to researching and implementing strategies for forest health and wildfire prevention, similar to existing institutes in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupState of Utah and its residentsImpactPotential for enhanced wildfire prevention, research, and forest health initiatives.MechanismEligibility for a federally supported institute.ScaleStatewide, affecting communities and natural landscapes vulnerable to wildfires.

GroupFederal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, BLM)ImpactIncreased collaboration and resource allocation for wildfire management in Utah.MechanismExpansion of the existing program's geographic scope.ScaleRegional impact on federal land management and research priorities.

GroupWildfire researchers and academic institutionsImpactNew opportunities for funding, collaboration, and research specific to Utah's ecosystems.MechanismEstablishment of a new institute or expansion of existing ones to include Utah.ScaleLocalized to Utah-based institutions, but with broader implications for wildfire science.

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that Utah faces unique and growing challenges from wildfires, making its inclusion in this Act essential. They believe that a dedicated institute would allow for tailored research and prevention efforts, leveraging local expertise and resources to protect Utah's forests, watersheds, and communities more effectively.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision because it addresses a widely recognized public safety and environmental concern. Any potential opposition would likely be general concerns about federal spending or the efficiency of expanding existing programs, rather than the specific goal of wildfire prevention in Utah.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension, if any, involves resource allocation. While the bill authorizes the inclusion of Utah, the actual establishment and funding of an institute would depend on future appropriations. This could potentially divert resources from other existing institutes or programs, though proponents would argue the overall benefit of addressing a critical need outweighs such concerns.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.