Ex-forest chief says timber payments should be based on counties' need, or ecology and recreation

In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, to guarantee timber revenue to counties with much of their property in non-taxable national forests. The program expired in September after a parlous existence of several years, and the recent budget debate may replace it with a previous payment program that was, and would be, less reliable. Former U.S. Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth, left, gives an overview of the previous system, proposals before Congress and other options to continue paying counties in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. (High Country News photo)

The previous system gave local governments 25 percent of the revenues from their county's timber harvest. Bosworth writes such a system is unpredictable and would likely reduce payments to counties at times because the amount of timber harvested and the price of timber fluctuate.

President Obama has proposed phasing out the program over a two-to-five year period and funding payments from the already strapped Forest Service budget. This means the program would have to be reauthorized annually through the appropriations process, making it "difficult for many counties to provide basic services," Bosworth writes. A draft bill in the House "proposes a timber-only approach in which logging would pay for all future federal payments to counties" and would lead to more lax environmental laws and more federal spending, Bosworth writes. The Senate proposes using the current system at reduced levels for the next five years.

Bosworth says Congress should "deliver payments to counties based on economic need" or "link funding to efforts by counties to improve ecosystems and recreation opportunities on federal lands." After all, if the bill is not reauthorized, the Oregon State University Rural Studies program estimates that Oregon could lose about 4,000 jobs and be forced "to make deep cuts in school funding", not to mention how it would impact other states with national forests. (Read more)