In November 2021, on a plane trip from Qatar to Washington, D.C., Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego) to talk redwoods.

The giant trees do not grow in any of their districts, but are considered a national treasure.

Often exceeding 300 feet in height, they are the largest trees in the world and only grow naturally on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. Some have been standing for over 3,000 years. Their design, the tree’s cones release seeds when exposed to heat, allowing them to thrive in California’s wildfire ecosystem for millennia, and scientists are studying them to gain insight into climate history.

The last known large-scale destruction

of these trees were in 1297. But as of 2015, an estimated 20% of the surviving population has been lost to wildfires.

The intensity of these fires has been exacerbated by warmer and third climates and decades of well-intentioned government wildfire suppression policies. The trees may die out in the near future

three

decades

unless something changes, some researchers say.

During their 45-minute conversation on a plane somewhere over the Atlantic, the Arkansas legislator convinced the Californian of the urgency of the threat. Their interaction resulted in a rough blueprint for legislation

intended to save the redwoods from extinction.

Today, Westerman and Peters have broad bipartisan support, with 24 Democrats and 29 Republicans supporting their bill, the Save Our Sequoias Act.

Most of the legislators who helped co-sponsor the legislation are from California.

Even if a bill receives support from both sides of the aisle, getting it passed without the blessing of the Speaker of the House can be an impossible feat. In this case that is not an obstacle:

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy supports not only the bill, but also the main sponsor.

This session, the Bakersfield Republican is the main sponsor of only five measures, four of which have already passed the House. Westerman and Peters’ account is the last on his roll and could help save the giant trees, many of which are in his precinct.

The bill would approve $205 million

in the next seven

years

to protect all redwood groves and legislate an existing coalition, including the National Park Service, Forest Service, and the University of California, Berkeley, to oversee much of the process of saving the trees , according to Tom Erb, a climate consultant for Peters.

It would also speed up environmental assessments for forest protection projects, often cleaning up excess fuel near the bushes that can intensify fires.

Despite the bipartisan nature of the bill, it has met stiff opposition from some groups, including the Sierra Club, the GreenLatinos and the Pacific Crest Trail Assn., who warned in a letter that the proposal would undermine existing environmental protections and “potentially destroy logging projects.”

“The legislation is a misguided step in the wrong direction that would remove science and community input from decision-making and seriously undermine basic environmental laws,” said the letter signed by 81 groups. The letter warned that the legislation would set a bad precedent and “may even exacerbate the threat to Giant Sequoias and our forests.”

Mark Larabee, the advocacy director of the Pacific Crest Trail Assn., said his group supports the intent of the bill but not the method, saying that by adequately funding existing environmental laws and programs, Congress could not only save the redwoods but strengthen agencies’ ability to address other serious address problems plaguing forests.

“The work of these agencies continues to grow and the dollars continue to shrink,” Larabee said, adding that both inflation and underfunding undermine the agencies’ ability to protect treasures like the redwoods. This bill is a “clever way of trying to weaken the law on the basis of a very good cause,” he said. “It’s a slippery slope.”

Supporters of the bill argue that federal agencies don’t have enough authority to protect the remaining trees, noting that at the current rate, it would take the Forest Service more than five decades to protect the 19 priority groves.

In an interview, Peters described opposition to the bill as “disappointing”.

Some environmental groups “have become almost as political in some cases as Congress itself,” Peters said. “They have adopted the view that changing environmental laws or modifying environmental laws is a kind of slippery slope that goes against biblical principles.”

Peters noted that some laws as constructed create an inherent time dilation. “We can’t involve the environmental groups in many cases in how we adapt, how we modernize these laws to address the current threats around forestry or climate change,” he said. “It’s very frustrating.”

He noted that a range of groups support the bill, including Edison International, the

National Congress of American Indians and the Save the Redwoods League.

Still, some environmental groups say that while the intent of the bill is correct, lawmakers support bills that would undermine efforts to fight climate change.

Olivia Juarez, director of the GreenLatinos public land program, noted that McCarthy opposes many efforts to combat climate change. “His intentions with this bill do not match his conduct,” Juarez said in an interview.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) said fires are inevitable in California.

“It’s just a bit of luck of the draw with where it will hit,” he said. “Removing the excess material and leaving the redwoods behind is what we’re looking for so that when a fire breaks out, [the trees can be saved].”

It is unclear when the bill will be put to a vote in the House of Representatives, and there is no existing companion bill in the Senate. Two California senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla introduced similar legislation last year but did not commit to supporting the language in the most recent draft of the House bill.

The bill would likely need the support of at least 60 senators to evade a filibuster and land on President Biden’s desk. When asked if Biden would support the bill, the White House The Times referred to testimony in May from Forest Service Chief Randy Moore, in which he expressed that the “emergency facing giant sequoias is unprecedented” and said the Forest Service ” the purpose of the rescue”. Our redwood law.”