Somewhat under the radar, discussions continue in Washington, D.C., over the issue of county timber payments. Some members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), recently expressed concern that the Obama administration is not making the program a higher priority.

 

"I'm pretty frustrated," said DeFazio. "I don't feel like there is a high-level focus or sense of urgency. I just don't hear anything going on or see anything going on."

 

The federal payments are a huge deal in most rural Oregon counties, many of which include Oregon AFSCME-represented employees. Some county budgets are based 50 percent or more on the federal payments. Back in the heyday of the timber industry, the counties received a portion of the receipts from timber cut on federal forestland. This was deemed fair and appropriate, notes Council 75 Political Coordinator Mary Botkin, because many such counties include a substantial portion of U.S. government-owned forests within their boundaries.

 

As the timber industry declined, Congress passed a program that created payments in lieu of the timber receipts, technically called the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act. But in the mid-1990s, that program began to be a target as the federal budget deficit rose. Many in other areas of the country saw the program as "free money" for the counties. While the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act is national in scope, it doesn't help quiet critics that over 50 percent of the money disbursed goes to Oregon counties, with Oregon being a state of small population — and therefore relatively small influence in Congress.

 

"Our counter to that is, of course, this is where the trees are — or at least were," said Botkin. "It's 'your' county, yet in some cases more than half the land in your county belongs to Uncle Sam."

 

As it stands right now, the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act is scheduled to expire in October 2011. The program provides more than $100 million a year to rural Oregon counties and schools; again, to expressly compensate for the large swaths of land owned by the federal government. Obama, while campaigning for president 2008, promised to meet with local and state officials about what happens after the Act expires. DeFazio and others say that hasn't happened.

 

It's a contentious issue that cuts across party lines. U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), representing a state with few commercial trees, illustrates the opposing point of view in pointing out that the last extension of the Act was sold as a way to transition rural counties away from continued federal subsidies.

 

"There was the expectation that rural communities would begin to move away from federal dollars toward more sustainable budgets," says Grijalva.

 

"Just how exactly is Josephine County supposed to do that when over half its land is federally-owned?" counters Botkin. "They can't sell it. They can't develop it. And for a variety of reasons, some environmental, trees aren't being cut, so there are no receipts from timber sales. It's easy for someone outside looking in to say, 'Well, they should just do something else.' But what's a county to do when it's the minority landowner within its own jurisdiction?"

 

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that because of the federal payments, property taxes in such rural counties are artificially low. And even if county residents were willing to make up for the difference in one fell swoop and double their own taxes — which they aren't, Botkin is quick to point out — legally they couldn't. Various Oregon ballot measures passed over the years cap and restrict the amount property taxes can increase each year.

 

"So they're stuck," said Botkin. "They can't raise taxes enough to maintain services even if they want to."

 

U.S.  Forest Service Deputy Chief Joel Holtrop said federal agencies are thinking about what happens in 2011 when the program ends, making reference to a "transition time." But DeFazio said Holtrop's phrasing emphasizes a lack of understanding about what will happen to rural counties.

 

"We're not looking at transition, we're looking at catastrophe," DeFazio said.

 

DeFazio has sent a letter to Obama asking the president to continue the program. That letter was signed by 60 House members, and a similar U.S. Senate letter drew 29 co-signers. That was over two weeks ago, says DeFazio, and he's still awaiting a response.

 

Botkin, who lobbies this issue in Oregon, says AFSCME International is very much aware of its importance.

 

"We have national union staff working this issue constantly for us back on Capitol Hill," she said. "It's being worked hard on every end, we're just not seeing the results we want yet. But we haven't given up. We never will."