Resolution of Timber Lawsuit Holds Opportunity to Heal

It is impossible to turn back time and undo a generation of setbacks due to lost revenue, but it is the responsibility of the State to make good on its promise and contract moving forward.

Dec 07, 2021

vintage postcard oregon timber near seaside oregon

The past two years have provided a new perspective on the real-world implications of Oregon’s urban-rural divide. We’ve seen that delivering equitable services across Oregon is easier said than done and learned that committing real dollars to good intentions can be a challenge.

As an example, in November 2019 a jury awarded 13 timber trust counties more than $1 billion from the State, which it found breached a long-standing contract to manage its forests. Yet despite the decisive verdict in favor of these counties, plus an interest accrual rate of about $260,000 a day until the payment has been made, the State appears to be banking on the hope of an appeal that would further stall restitution and leave the case lingering for years to come. This is not in the best interest of any Oregonian, rural or urban.

The history of this case tells the story of a growing divide. It goes back to the 1941 Forest Acquisition Act that created the idea of Greatest Permanent Value — managing forest trust lands in a way that maintained timber revenue to local counties and taxing districts. Because these productive forest lands had been given to the State to manage, the State was responsible for ensuring they continued to economically benefit the counties and their residents.

Then in 1998 the Board of Forestry changed the agreement by reducing harvest levels, and for the 20 years that followed timber revenue suffered while the State prioritized overabundant environmental protection and enhanced recreational opportunities.

These are admirable goals, but the resulting two decades of revenue shortfalls were shouldered entirely by Timber Trust counties and their residents. The jury found that the cost of these priorities came to $1.065 billion, and that it’s only fair for the State to compensate these counties for the years of cutting public safety, education, emergency services, road maintenance, health care, libraries, and other essential services due to lost revenue.

In short, residents of these counties have been paying the entire tab for priorities set outside of their purview. The verdict in the case confirmed the principle that when benefits are conveyed to the entire state, the entire state is responsible to help pay for them.

This victory in court doesn’t mean these counties are looking to skirt their environmental responsibilities. As a Tillamook County commissioner, I am proud of our status as a state leader in clean water, habitat restoration, and fish recovery. But we must meet the needs of residents as well.

The economics of timber harvest is more than just revenue – it also includes jobs in forestry, mills, and trucking that are some of the best-paying opportunities in rural Oregon. Without compensation for lost revenue or replacement of lost jobs, these counties took an enormous hit.

This is what the jury considered when handing down its ruling. It is impossible to turn back time and undo a generation of setbacks due to lost revenue, but it is the responsibility of the State to make good on its promise and contract moving forward.

Think of the impact it would have on rural counties to not only infuse dollars into services and programs that have been missing it for 20 years, but also show a willingness to work as good faith partners rather than entering another round of litigation. Rather than pursuing a one-side-takes-all decision, we can rebalance the scales and ensure equal opportunity across the state.

County leaders are more than ready to come to the table. We value a strong working relationship with State leaders and believe we share more common interests than disagreements. We need to come together as colleagues, not combatants, for the benefit of all Oregonians.

AUTHOR BIO

I am Chair of Council of Forest Trust Lands Counties and county commissioner representative to Oregon Broadband Advisory Council and Ocean Policy Advisory Council. My focus is on natural resource based industries of timber, dairy and fishing.

RELATED PIECES