SHARE THIS SHOW:

RELATED CONVERSATIONS:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Life After Timber?

AIR DATE: Tuesday, June 10th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

How are Oregon's rural counties coping with the possible loss of federal timber payments?

A vote in the U.S. House of Representatives last week left Oregon's rural communities without an extension of the federal forest payments that have become essential to budgets in counties across the state. The bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio, would have funded the extension through back royalties on offshore oil and gas leases, which were originally lost through a government error. The vote came after a debate -- a rancorous one according to the Oregonian -- between Rep. DeFazio and Republican Rep. Greg Walden.

The counties caught in the middle of this struggle have some difficult choices ahead of them. Some have seen the writing on the wall, and already begun to budget differently when it comes to funding roads, law enforcement and other crucial infrastructure. Meanwhile, others are hoping that a Senate vote provides the timber payment extension they need to make it through another year without a major budget overhaul. None of these rural communities will be able to avoid slashing funds for libraries, law enforcement and public health services. In some cases, private funds are picking up the tab.

What would the loss of federal forest payments mean to your community? How have budget cuts already affected your quality of life? What creative solutions do you see to this ongoing problem? Have you feelings about timber payments changed since our first show about them, four months ago?

GUESTS:

Gil Gilbertson: Josephine County Sheriff

Doug Robertson: Douglas County Commissioner, President of Association of Oregon and California Counties, and Vice President of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition

John Audley: Federal Government Relations for The Nature Conservancy

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT): U.S. Congressman representing Utah's 1st district

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR): U.S. Congressman representing Oregon's 4th district

Tagged as: forest · logging · rural · timber payment

I have an acquaintenace who works for Lane County public works who has told me over and over how quite often she is not busy. I've heard so many stories that tell me that they are overstaffed. So when I the County goes for the jugular, cutting animal shelter and sherrif, I want to scream. Cut the fat where it really needs to be cut!!!

agjinin — Tue June 10th 12:18p.m.

My husband and I made the decision to move from Rogue River, Oregon in Jackson County to Vancouver, Washington in large part because of this issue. We could not remain with our young children in a county which could not provide consistent funding for libraries, schools, and the local sheriff. If rural Oregon counties want to have young families who will stay and pay taxes over the long haul they need to come up with ways to fund their own programs without relying on the whims of a congress that is largely disinterested in their local issues. If local taxpayers are unwilling to pay for services, they won't have them.

SaraRachel — Tue June 10th 12:20p.m.

This issue troubles me. As I understand it, the timber payments were put in place to allow these counties to transition to a non-timber based economy. Given that, I would argue that these subsidies should not have ended all at once. To encourage a transition, the payments should have been gradually reduced.

However, none of that addresses the issue that I'm seeing. Now, with the ending of these subsidies, there isn't talk about transitioning, there seems to be nothing but talk about "this is our money and we want it back". These counties were supposed to transition their economies, but there is no talk about doing that.

Now, all of that being said, I do support having these subsidies put back, but then gradually reduced, to properly encourage and provide for community needs during a transition.

Geoff.

SnowyRiver — Tue June 10th 12:21p.m.

I am on the Hood River County Library Board. All of our funding is from the Timber Payments at issue. We thought about lobbying our Congressmen, but were assured that they were united and doing a good job. Although we were warned that this is too regional an issue to get general support in Congress, the latest breakdown is a huge disappointment. What happened? What are the chances this could get through in this Congress? The next Congress? It seems like states with bridges to nowhere and other huge projects should throw us a bone.

Tim Farrell — Tue June 10th 12:24p.m.

Timber harvest has not just "dropped". We the people have required that forest service timber harvest be significantly reduced through our legal and civic actions. The income from the harvest was the source of revenue to local governments. If the source of revenue goes away it is not illogical to expect the payments to local government from that source of revenue to go away also. We need to understand that relationship, and our elected officials need to manage local government within their means.

Don Bramhall — Tue June 10th 12:26p.m.

How many times do we have to have the threat of rampant criminal activity waived in our faces? We've faced the loss of timber money for years and years. Why wasn't a contingency plan put in place a decade ago? The O&C lands have been off Oregon's tax rolls for almost 100 years. I'm tired of being given the false choices of clearcut, fill the forests with houses, or be overrun by criminals. These are not the only choices, and I will not support any measure that increases taxes without putting forth real choices first.

Desdemona — Tue June 10th 12:30p.m.

Congress recently approved a multi-billion Farm Bill that included a major Rural Development title. The bill also included many billions of dollars in new, additional spending. Did the congressional delegation from the Northwest consider using renewal of the Farm Bill as an opportunity to fund Timber Payments as a part of the Rural Development title? After all, specialty crop farmers and others insisted on new aid for their sectors as a condition of supporting reauthorization of the Farm Bill.

TJBend — Tue June 10th 12:36p.m.

Surely you have to mention the fact that Oregon has no sales tax. Why should residents of a rural county in South Dakota, who are taxing themselves for local services, also pay for local services in an Oregon County, where residents are not taxing themselves?

John Eft — Tue June 10th 12:37p.m.

Why do counties in Washington State seem to have few problems providing necessary services with no O&C lands from which to obtain timber receipts? Why does Oregon have so many problems like funding bridge and overpass replacements while Washington seems not to have all these bridge replacement problems? Could it be Washington State does projects correctly in the first place? I think Oregon counties have been feeding at the public trough for way too long and this is at the root of the problem.
Thanks,
James Wilkinson, Metaline Falls, WA.

Jammess — Tue June 10th 12:49p.m.

I am a former resident of Jackson County and an avid library user. I would like to challenge the use of terms like "creative" and "innovative" to describe Jackson County's decision to contract out its library services to a for-profit corporation.

In my opinion, a more accurate term would be "last resort" and perhaps even "tragic." I do not want a private corporation, however well-run and well-intentioned, controlling one of the community's best sources of public information. I think running a library is one of the best roles of local government and I am willing to pay for it. I would much prefer that than having any profits made from trimming corners going to the corporation or its shareholders. We run the danger of creating "McLibraries" if this trend continues.

I wish I had an outside solution to this funding crisis, but like SaraRachel below, I believe it is now up to local taxpayers to fund these services.

Library Fan — Tue June 10th 12:53p.m.

I'd like to respond to Doug Robertson's statement that the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) would provide environmental safeguards for forests on BLM lands. The fact is that this Bush Administration plan would increase the clea-cutting of old-growth forests by a staggering 700%. These forests, in addition to providing wildlife habitat, clean drinking water, and recreation opportunities, can play a big role in helping to mitigate climate change.

Jonny5 — Tue June 10th 12:55p.m.

Thank you for facilitating this conversation this morning.

The time has come to re-think federal payments. The forest provide critical ecosystem services to the people of the Oregon, the Pacific NW, and the entire world. The forests are a critical check in the teetering balance of climate change... we should manage the forests accordingly.

The US carbon/ecosystem market is forecast to be valued at $1 trillion by 2020! Management of the forests should be a part of this market.

In the meantime - the Feds should calculate the carbon footprint of the Bush wars and make payments to Oregon Counties to offset the carbon emmissions from the (senseless) war effort. ON a more practical consideration - payment by the Feds is a drop in the bucket compared to the economic havoc we will experience if the forests are cut and result with catastrophic events such as fire, wind storms, and flood thereby obliterating communities downstream.

community stewardship — Tue June 10th 12:59p.m.

I think it's unfortunate that the host confused Jackson and Josephine County's library situations.

Unlike Jackson County's libraries, Josephine County's have remain closed for over a year now. While Jackson County has hired a for-profit library company from Maryland, a private nonprofit has been started in Josephine County that hopes to reopen the libraries using a public radio/public television model. Memberships would be offered, but everybody would have access. It's a novel solution to a dire situtation.

robe0307 — Tue June 10th 3:43p.m.

As a former contractor with Jackson County, it is my opinion that funding local governments is bad business. They apparently only know how to spend the funds that are provided them and have no sense of using the funds to DEVELOP resources that will eventually eliminate the need for subsidized funding. I believe replacement funding is justified only with the stipulation that it be used by qualified entities to develop resources/plans that will eventually eliminate its need. This is definately not available by flowing the funds through county government.

rfoertsch — Tue June 10th 9:50p.m.

Comments are now closed.