In July, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced a bill that deals with decoupling, but not in the same way as the administration's proposal. Known as the Timber Dependent Counties Stabilization Act, HR4267 improves on the Forest Service proposal by requiring that payment amounts be adjusted for inflation. But then the bill establishes a multi-track system. It allows states and counties to choose whether they want to continue with the guaranteed payment or revert to a portion of timber revenues.

These options are controversial now in the Pacific Northwest. The Association of O&C Counties wants to keep the connection with the timber industry. Some county commissioners say that local governments benefit by that link. But what happens when counties have a financial stake in accelerating the cut? A growing number of people are troubled by the consequences. Benton County Commissioner Patsy Miller says, "It is inappropriate to link county revenues to the harvest of trees on our federal forests. Such a financial incentive often influences counties to support unsustainable forest management practices." Linda Peters, chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners, writes, "I have come to realize how counties' reliance on timber revenues can push us toward non-sustainable positions on ecologically critical issues."

Because I share those concerns, I spent a week in late September in Washington, D.C., acquainting members of Congress with the issue. I brought a resolution signed by the Lane County Board of Commissioners calling for a decoupling plan.

For Oregon counties such as ours, decoupling would stabilize revenues for road repairs and schools. Commissioners in office before 1993 remember when westside counties faced revenue levels that made the safety net look good. For hard-hit eastside counties, decoupling means more than just a continuance of safety-net-level budgets. Grant County would see an increase of almost $5 million annually. Harney and Lake counties would each gain about $2.5 million. That's why the Klamath Falls Herald and News called decoupling "good news for the counties." In Washington state, The Skamania County Pioneer said, "A proposed change in how federal timber dollars are computed could save Skamania County's bacon."

A Washington Post editorial late last year praised the concept of decoupling. It said counties "no longer would be dependent upon a larger cut; and an important consideration in the current climate, they also would be better protected against a smaller one."

DeFazio's aide, Jeff Stier, is quoted in High Country News (Oct. 26) as recognizing the time for change: "It's silly for counties to tie their fortunes to the hope that we're going back in time in terms of forest management. That's just not in the cards."

Still, there are county commissioners who believe that the timber boom years will return. Coos County Commissioner Gordon Ross told members of the Association of Oregon Counties last spring that he opposes decoupling, "because the counties will lose the forest industry as friends." Polk County Commissioner Mike Propes concurred, adding that "someday the nation will return to production, and the revenues will be better than the guarantee." Propes may be right, but none of us will live long enough to see his prediction come true.

In an effort to maintain ties with the timber industry and secure a measure of stability, the Association of Oregon Counties has endorsed what is known as "either/or language." Essentially, the association wants the protection of a high guaranteed payment with the option to cream off the fat if revenues ever increase beyond that level. As an elected county official, I understand the wish to hold on to the best of both policies. But I doubt that the federal government will cover the risk during poorer years and then give the cream away to local governments.

In short, decoupling will help Lane County and other counties because it offers predictability and stability. It protects counties from fluctuations in timber markets and changes in federal forest management. Decoupling removes short-term financial incentives for counties to push for unsustainable logging of federal forest lands.

Why wait until the deadline of the year 2003? Decoupling could have helped counties and forests this year, but Congress was not prepared to act. I'm advocating for strong decoupling legislation soon. If we can secure county services while the national forests recover, I'll say there had been a good bargain.

Pete Sorenson is a Lane County commissioner.

Reprinted on this web site with permission.