Be the Spark!

contribute now

The End of Timber Payments?

AIR DATE: Thursday, January 24th 2008
POSTED BY: EMILY HARRIS
Download the mp3 for this show.

For most of the last century, U.S. counties with federal timber land (read: much of Oregon) got a share of the proceeds of sales. Originally used to fund schools and roads, these payments now go to a wide range of other county services — everything from libraries to mental health clinics, bridges to jails.

The money allowed timber-full counties to keep their taxes low (and they didn't have very large tax bases to begin with). But when logging on federal lands plunged in the 1990s — remember the spotted owl? — the revenue dropped, too. Congress fixed it for a while, making up the difference from other funds. But that fix expired, and a stop-gap one year extension is now due to go away this June.

Some counties are still hoping the money will be restored, but others say it's reality time. When do you know it's time to say goodbye to a historic source of income due to circumstances beyond your control? And what's the best way forward? More logging? Rolling back property tax limits? Raising specific levies for specific services? Or, if those levies don't pass, perhaps just cutting the services themselves?

GUESTS:

 

Tagged as: logging · timber payment

I think it may be time to admit that we need to rethink the entire tax structure here in Oregon. Property tax limits hurt rural and urban areas, and without another tax source, like a sales tax (which by being more of a burden on the poor make it a bad choice in my opinion), we need to relook at how we are paying for the services we need. Otherwise, I think we will have to give up services that it is important to me that we keep available. Healthy school systems, good higher education options, health care for all of Oregon's children, good public transportation and road systems; all have to be funded.
JuliaMJK —
I planted trees in old clear cuts twenty years ago which are now densely packed, fire prone tree plantations. The one thing Oregon does well is grow trees. I think we need to stop cutting all old growth while at the same time re-invest in labor-intensive, pre-commercial thinning of our overcrowded public lands. This will take a truce between those who want to cut every tree down and those who want to stop all logging. Rural Oregon timber counties don't need handouts, they need critical federal investment. Where have all the leaders gone?
unioncard —
You said these overcrowded public lands need to be commercially thinned. How do you categorized "old Growth?" 100 years of fire suppression has led to the overcrowding of forest stands, stunting tree growth. This means old growth trees are not always large and can fall well within the guidelines for commercial harvesting, defeating the purpose of saving old growth forests.
Nickel Arcade —
These counties and areas really need to adapt. I would not be in favor of leaving the timber payment cut off as it stands right now- the impact on individuals and communities would be terrible and would stand to encourage disregard for the logging restrictions that brought us here to begin with.

That said, though, I would like to see any renewal of these payments tied to infrastructure developments encouraging local processing of extracted timber and diversification of industry in the impacted areas; lacking that sort of transformation, these areas will remain beholden to these timber payments indefinitely.
loopgru —

this blog post is very encouraging to people who want to know these topics.

Disodium EDTA

Calcium Disodium EDTA

helpgodme —
This problem is about 10 years old. The irresponsibility of those who chose to rely on an unfunded federal subsidy instead of moving towards a new economy is mind boggling. Have their heads been in the sand this whole time? Nobody was asking them to stop clear cutting just because we wanted to cause them financial pain. They had to stop raping the forests because they were causing long-term, possibly irreversible damage to the natural system on which we, and countless other species, rely. They should never have received federal funding to do nothing but nostalgically pine away for the old days of plundering the forest at will. That money should have been used to accomplish tangible results such as thinning the tree plantations that have resulted from unconscionable looting of our natural heritage and legacy. This is still the USA. How about a little adaptation and innovation instead of waiting for a handout. Our national forests are their own excuse for being and belong to everyone. They shouldn't have to "pay their own way."
MTBnut541 —
In Jackson County, these monies represent 36% of the county general fund. The money is based on former harvest levels. Many residents support reduced harvest levels, but the decision on how millions of our acres are used is a federal one. There are no easy or fast methods to replace this income. It will be a patchwork quilt of answers.
Buck Eichler
buckeichler —
Everyone in the state should care about this issue, and the potential solutions because it will/does affect all of us. The solutions will likely be that the funding for those counties and services will come from all of the taxpayers in Oregon with a redistribution of funds to help prop up the counties. Additionally, potential fuel taxes to help pay for roads in ailing counties will affect everyone travelling through the state.
ORSunshine —
I am in high tech. I move about every 5 years. During the Reagan-Bush years I worked in defense. In the Clinton years I worked in manufacturing. Now I am in Oregon working in high-tech/semiconductors.

It is not unusual for a workforce to have to follow the work. Many manufacturing jobs have left this country, and those people had to deal. Why is it that natural resources workers feel entitled to a job and a certain lifestyle without moving? This applies to timber, fisheries, mining and so on. When your work moves or disappears, you move to where there is work.
baldwinl —
A simple point:

The timber industry brought revenue from across the country into Oregon and into the counties now affected, providing jobs and finding local and county services. Having lost those funds and wages, those counties will not be able to support the services OR POPULATIONS they had. Without the wages, no amount of local taxation can fully replace the lost revenues.

I think a state-wide solution will be required. Unfortunately, some areas will need to provide the funds to other areas, and thus, the effort will be very challenging.
wjw1961 —
Many people have already noted that this is an old problem, and there is definitely a note of ignoring a looming problem in this. However, the problem can go back to the people who put this subsidy in place. If this was a diminishing subsidy, it would force the local people to gradually pick up their own burden. Perhaps an ongoing subsidy is due, but surely not the total amount. The creation of a financial 'cliff' is invariably a recipe for disaster.

Also, for the locals to say that they don't want to be supported by taxes from the rest of the state, but they are willing to be supported by this subsidy that is funded by taxes on the rest of the country seems a bit hard to swallow. If the state values these communities then we should all be willing to support them by the best means possible.
SnowyRiver —
Its time to get creative in timber counties: the world is looking for carbon sinks to soak up all the carbondioxide we produce. Join the growing carbon market and get paid for growing trees and preserving forests, NOT for cutting them. OECD countries have a plan to pay folks in the tropics to preserve the Amazon forest, for instance. Why not sell Oregon forests as carbon sinks?
Coolibahtree —
I turned in late so didn't hear the whole show. Did you cover how much might come from federal lands if the feds just paid normal property taxes and standard severance tax when they cut trees? I suspect that the payments to counties have been more than what ordinary taxes would be, but I never hear anything about that.

It is my understanding that the share of revenues given to counties varied a lot depending on the program. If we simply returned to the old system, O & C lands pay a bigger share than National Forests. I believe harvests under Stewardship Contracts do not pay anything at all. Was this covered in the show? I've been interested in understanding the whole system. Your show came closer than any I've heard. Thanks for doing it. Sorry I didn't get to hear the whole show.

With fewer log trucks on the roads from National Forest operations, it makes sense for the feds to pay less to the counties. Those of us using services need to to pick up more of our own costs. I hope we can find a fair way through this.

coastrange —
If over the last two decades the amount of timber removed from Oregon's federal forest had remained at the level as seen from 1950 to 1990 there would be little timber left to be cut in the National Forest today and the "timber" counties would have permanently lost most of their timber revenues and much of their population. This would not have been something unique to Oregon, this is just the way of the timber industry as in the past centuries the timber industry has cut its way out of business across the country and globe. I personally think that the time for handouts to rural counties should be over.

Isn't this what the right has been crying about for years anyway. They want to never pay taxes into the system but are always willing to take them out. If should seem obvious you can't lower taxes and keep giving money away to maintain dying lifestyle.
shonisee —
I agree in principle, but it's just not a realistic stance to say the heck with them, let's cut them off... any more than it is to say that to people who wind up needing to fall back on welfare or unemployment.

However, both welfare and unemployment benefits are predicated upon working to put the individual in a position such that they will not need them; these federal timber payments are not, and that, I think, is the problem. Continue the payments in order to maintain regional stability, but channel the money toward transforming industry in the impacted areas toward something that will be economically sustainable with the current extraction limits in place.
loopgru —
Years ago, when I first graduated from Forestry School (1981), I headed out to the PNW to look for a job. This was way before anyone had the spotted owl to kick around, and there was a SERIOUS recession in the housing market. As I traveled from California to British Columbia, there were signs on the doors announcing layoffs. I remember clearly the statement made by the CEO of Louisiana Pacific: "We are not up against the environmentalists, we are up against the Pacific Ocean!" It was as clear then as it is now; a diversified economy is a healthier economy. Relying on timber to pay for all necessary services makes no sense, just like growing monocrops for miles invites disease. Relying on property taxes as the main source of money for the general fund doesn't make sense either. The burden of society's needs should go to all entities, not just one or two. I'm not sure why the taxpayers of Oregon stubbornly continue to avoid adopting a sales tax; why, we don't even dare TALK about it out loud. We try to get individual groups of taxpayers to take care of our problems (like property owners, or smokers, etc.), when a sales tax is equally distributed to all. This would even include visitors to our state (those who work here and travel back to another state to reside, tourists, etc.). Sales taxes need NOT be a blanket tax; it could exclude any number of areas, including groceries and pharmaceuticals. We need firemen and police, libraries, jails, decent schools, decent roads and decent healthcare. Isn't it about time the citizens of Oregon got real and recognized the wisdom of accepting what's necessary and efficient?
littlebip —
I believe state taxes should cover schools based on student numbers and roads based on length and traffic. Counties should NOT receive any funds based on their proximity to a federal, state or county forest. If a city or town cannot survive without the, they need to turn other methods of survival. Timber companies need to pay higher taxes and the public will have to pay more for lumber products- all will have to learn conservation instead of greed. Yes, roll back property tax limits so counties can cover services they think are necessary. No more welfare. Cutting trees is fine if they take those under 40 years old with limbs close to the ground causing high fire danger, not the the older trees which survive fire much more readily.
Actwisely —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics