The news has been filled with the
budget woes of southern Oregon counties and the cuts in services that County Commissioners
have made. The budget crisis is an outcome of Congress’ failure to reauthorize the Secure
Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act (SSCSDA,) which terminated in 2006. Siskiyou
County is also experiencing the same loss in revenue. Basically, we are now facing a $4
million drop in our Road Department budget for fiscal year 2007-08, which is approximately
one half of that department’s revenue. Like the Oregon counties, the Siskiyou County
Board of Supervisors must decide how to adjust to this loss.
Back in the early 1900s, the federal government removed large
forested areas in the West from private settlement and development under the homestead
laws. These became our National Forests. The stated
purposes of the Forests were to (1) ensure "a continuous supply of timber for the use
and necessities of United States citizens"; and (2) to secure favorable conditions of
water flows. It was established that the economic well-being of the citizens of a state
wherein timber is located was to be considered in administering the National Forests.
These land set-asides created many small communities that are
entirely land-locked by National Forests. This: (1) limits Forest-dependent communities
from growth and the creation of a local self-sustaining tax base; (2) requires visitor
services for which the federal government pays little, if any, taxes; and (3) removes
resources from economic development under a private free-market economy. (About 63% of Siskiyou
County is currently government “owned” land.) To compensate, a system was
devised by Congress to allocate 25% of the net revenue from products sold off the Forests
to the County for schools and roads. For instance, in 1989/90, Siskiyou County government
received $4.2 million in these revenues – primarily from timber harvest.
When the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP - northern spotted owl plan) was
put into place, restrictions on harvest were imposed. According to its Land and Resource
Management Plan, the targeted Allowable Sales Quantity (ASQ) for timber production on the Klamath
National Forest under the NWFP is supposed to be 440 MMBF (million board feet.) over a 10
year period - or approximately 44 MMBF a year. This harvest target was to consist of
commercial species of trees at least 13 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and 50
feet tall. (The Klamath actually grows about 654 MMBF a year.) Due to environmental
appeals and suits, the increased costs of additional “Survey and Manage”
requirements and the loss of personnel capacity, the Klamath has been harvesting only
about 14-15 MMB a year.
Recognizing
this shortfall, Congress passed the SSCSDA providing payments to the counties based on
past average pre-spotted owl timber receipts. This
was to bridge the ramp-up time until the Allowable Sale Quantity production was in place.
(Thanks to extreme environmental pressures, these promised harvest levels never
materialized.) In 2003-04, Siskiyou County received a total of $9,106,000 in revenues from
this act. About $3,870,000 went to county schools and an equal amount to county roads.
Approximately $686,500 went to the Siskiyou County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and
another $686,500 to offset impacts of County services for search and rescue, fire and
other departmental expenses related to the National Forest.
Now that
the Act has sunsetted, payments revert to the old 25% formula. The severe reduction in
harvest, along with the new Stewardship Contracts which pass nothing through to the Counties, means that we are receiving
$250,000 rather than $4 million.
Rural Forest
Counties and schools have been working with Congress to get a reauthorization of the
SSCSDA legislation. Congressman Herger and Senators Feinstein and now Boxer are working
for reauthorization. However, many in Congress now view these payments as “pork”
or “County welfare.” The urban public no longer appreciates the burden of
federal lands on county services, not to mention the costs to local economies of extreme
preservationist policies on the productive use of forest resources.
|
