U.S. Reps. Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden have a monster political fight on their hands. But they knew they were in for one when they began working on their groundbreaking plan to end the impasse on O&C forests in Western Oregon and provide a steady flow of revenue to rural counties that can replace lost federal timber payments.
On Thursday, DeFazio and Schrader, both Democrats, and Walden, a Republican, took the wraps off their long-anticipated proposal that would divide 1.5 million acres of federal forests into two separate trusts. One would preserve old growth and emphasize conservation, while the other would be managed actively for logging and other natural resource extraction, generating the revenues needed to pay for public safety, roads and rural schools in rural counties.
The Oregon congressmen went public earlier than anticipated after the House Resources Committee took up a separate bill sponsored by Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. That legislation also seeks to replace the timber payments program, but it does so through a ham-fisted approach that fails to take into account the federal government’s unique obligation to the O&C counties. Hastings’ proposal appears doomed in the Senate.
DeFazio, Walden and Schrader had worked for months with Hastings, who heads the House resources panel. The idea was to integrate their O&C proposal into the committee’s measure, which would replace federal payments for timber counties in dozens of states.
But Hastings blocked that effort at the last moment because of GOP opposition to any provision that benefited a single state — in this case Oregon and its O&C lands. Some Republicans also oppose a proposed short-term extension of the federal payments program, which is needed to keep counties afloat for the three years it would take before the new O&C commercial trust begins producing revenues.
Those objections, as well as the decision to block the DeFazio-Schrader-Walden proposal, are ill informed and shortsighted.
After eight terms in Congress, Hastings should understand the unique obligation that the federal government has to the O&C counties, but apparently he missed those briefings. So here’s a brief history primer for Hastings and other members of Congress who wrongly believe Oregon counties are seeking special treatment from the federal government.
O&C refers to the Oregon & California Railroad, the beneficiary of one of the largest land grants in U.S. history. After the railroad failed to meet the terms of that grant, more than 2.5 million acres of the railroad’s lands reverted to federal ownership in 1916.
The lands are scattered in 18 Oregon counties and are managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Lane County has the third-largest acreage of O&C lands.
Here’s the historic hook on which the O&C counties hang their hat: The O&C lands had been on county property tax rolls for more than half a century, and they were supposed to be sold to settlers. The loss of that tax revenue was crippling to the counties.
As compensation, Congress agreed to give counties half of the revenues from the sale of timber on the lands, in perpetuity. And it’s this revenue-sharing formula in the O&C Act of 1937 that sets the O&C counties apart from other counties that contain U.S. Forest Service or BLM lands — the counties that Hastings’ bill seeks to treat the same as the O&C counties.
As for his opposition to short-term extension of the county payments program, Hastings should explain how rural Oregon counties, some of which could face bankruptcy as early as this year, are supposed to survive for the three or more years it will take until the revenues start flowing from expanded logging on federal lands under his proposal.
DeFazio and Schrader say they, along with Walden, will continue to work with Hastings to include their O&C legislation in his bill. But it might fare better split off from Hastings’ bill, which would expand dramatically logging on Forest Service property with guarantees that revenue from timber sales would be 60 percent of the income collected during high production years. Hasting’s proposal would expedite timber sales and run roughshod over environmental protections, with an inflexible production mandate that nearly ensures rejection by the Senate.
The DeFazio-Schrader-Walden proposal remains a work in progress — so much so that the lawmakers were unable to provide specifics Thursday on how much revenue it would produce for the counties and how much timber would be harvested. It’s necessary to reserve judgment in the absence of such critical details, but their proposal provides the best hope of breaking the gridlock in Western Oregon forests, rescuing counties from financial collapse, creating thousands of family-wage jobs and reviving rural communities.
DeFazio, Schrader and Walden will face a huge struggle in getting their proposal through Congress, and they will need their Oregon colleagues in the Senate, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, to do some heavy lifting. There are sure to be more opposition and setbacks along the way, but they should keep moving forward.
The future of rural Oregon hangs in the balance.
