Sunday, October 23, 2011

The Oregonian reported on a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturns 35 years of established Environmental Protection Agency policy for regulating forest roads under the Clean Water Act ("Oregon will appeal ruling aimed at curbing logging road pollution," July 25). This court case decision creates immediate problems for Oregon's timber economy - problems which our state simply cannot afford.

As Co-Speakers of the Oregon House, we know that Oregon has a rich history of responsible use of its natural resources, and has in place a strong regulatory system through the Oregon Forest Practices Act and various administrative rules. In Oregon, we have a very successful track record of protecting water quality and aquatic habitat. These "Best Management Practices" are updated regularly and strengthened in response to new scientific research. We take great pride in the way private landowners and foresters are protecting our state's natural resources.

The 9th Circuit court decision would put new burdens on both the small and large owners of Oregon's 11 million acres of private forestlands. The forest products industry is a vital part of Oregon's economic survival. With unemployment lingering close to ten percent statewide, and up in to the teens in our forestry-dependent counties, the threats presented by the 9th Circuit Court's short-sighted opinion will only further depress economic recovery.

The Court's decision potentially creates legal paralysis threatening 120,000 forest related jobs (with payroll totaling $4 billion) and $130 million in state income and severance tax revenues that pay for vital public services. The new court ruling will not achieve its intended environmental benefits. The uncertainty could force some forest landowners to convert their forests to other uses, like commercial or residential developments. And perhaps most importantly, if this decision stands, Oregon's forestry industries and those employed by it will lose market share to competitors overseas or in other regions of the country who are not subject to these burdensome permit requirements and their resulting legal exposure.

We cannot imagine a worse time to implement unnecessary and bureaucratic regulations on such a critical contributor to our state's economy. Senator Ron Wyden and Congressmen Kurt Schrader and Greg Walden have stepped up for Oregon and introduced federal legislation aimed at correcting this flawed court decision. Their legislation will restore the long-standing, sensible, state oversight that has encouraged sound stewardship and provided good jobs and clean water for Oregonians.

It is our hope that Congress will pass this legislation, and that the Obama administration will work with Congress to protect much needed jobs in our state.

Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, are co-speakers of the Oregon House of Representatives.

© 2011 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.

________________________________________
We can't clear-cut our way to prosperity
Sunday, October 23, 2011
By Guest Columnist - Pete Sorenson

In his Oct. 8 opinion column ("Ending federal timber payments to Oregon...") Representative Dennis Richardson argued that the laws that protect our clean drinking water, salmon, and wildlife are responsible for the looming county funding crisis and the high levels of unemployment in rural Oregon. The solution, he argues, is a return to the days when logging was king and the environment was not a serious concern. But this is 2011, not 1911, and the idea that Oregon can clear-cut its way to prosperity just doesn't mesh with the world we live in today.

Back in the 1970s, I worked as a legislative assistant to former Congressman Jim Weaver. As a staffer for an elected official who represented a big chunk of western Oregon, we heard from constituents on all sorts of issues - including federal forest management. Some of the most vocal were county commissioners and timber industry lobbyists sending the message: "Get out the cut."

Their request had a simple motivation. County government funding was tied to revenue generated from clear-cutting public forests located on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands. In 1964, cutting on these federal public lands in Oregon had reached an all-time high of over 5 billion board feet. Much of it was old-growth logs.

In the 1970s, Congress passed laws - with overwhelming public support - to protect clean water, endangered species, and the general health of our nation's environment. These laws were a response to the reckless levels of logging and pollution that were occurring at the time, and they were intended to ensure that our grandchildren would still have wild salmon, old-growth forests, and clean drinking water. Most Americans--and most Oregonians--consider that to be a good thing.

Today, I serve on the Lane County Board of Commissioners. I am intimately familiar with funding challenges facing county governments across the state, and the sad state of our economy. If Congress fails to extend the Secure Rural Schools legislation and a solution to this funding crisis is not found, my county may be faced with a $10 million general fund shortfall and will likely be forced to eliminate salaries for 100 employees.

Given the scale of this crisis, it is tempting to look for scapegoats. Richardson and the logging industry use a handy one - the environment. They claim that by reducing environmental safeguards and increasing logging we can fund counties and revitalize rural Oregon. The reality is that even if we set aside the poor U.S. housing market and low demand for timber, the economics just don't add up.

A recent analysis by Headwaters Economics shows that we'd have to log up to 48.2 billion board feet per year across the nation to make up for Secure Rural Schools funding. To do that, U.S. taxpayers would have to pay an additional $5.9 billion dollars annually to fund the Forest Service and BLM to plan those logging sales. In Lane County, this means logging 10 times more on federal lands than we have averaged over the past 15 years. Clear-cutting our way out of the funding problem just isn't possible with today's realities.

That isn't to say that sustainable timber production from federal public lands doesn't have a role to play in revitalizing our economy. The success of the Siuslaw National Forest--which focuses its timber program on thinning projects in areas that have already been logged in the past--points the way forward. By staying out of old-growth forests and protecting clean water and wildlife, the Siuslaw has avoided conflict while still producing timber and jobs. Expanding this model throughout the region is one common-sense step that can boost employment and help rural economies.

But increased timber production won't solve the county funding crisis. Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act is the best solution in the short term, and a new bipartisan deal announced in Congress this week makes it look more promising that there will be an extension.

However, to solve county funding issues over the long-term, we may have to search for new ideas like shifting management of the interspersed BLM forests to the U.S. Forest Service to save a huge chunk of the money currently spent to manage those lands. We could also look at stemming the flow of timber overseas to China--a practice that kills Oregon jobs and reduces funding for rural schools, law enforcement, and other services. And we should explore opportunities for payments from the carbon sequestration our federal forests do naturally through their growth.

Whatever the ultimate solution to our county funding issues, history has taught us that we can't cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that route and this is the mess we're left with.

Pete Sorenson is a Lane County Commissioner.
© 2011 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.

view email in browser | unsubscribe | update your profile | forward to a friend

Natural Resources Group
Copyright (C) 2011 PAC/WEST All rights reserved.