By Peter DeFazio
What if someone told you there was a bipartisan agreement in Congress to protect the iconic Rogue River, end the forest wars by saving the remaining old growth in western Oregon, help failing rural counties provide basic government services, create thousands of family-wage jobs, and save the federal government millions of dollars every year?
Impossible, right?
After months of negotiation and hard work, Rep. Greg Walden, Rep. Kurt Schrader and I recently released a discussion draft of the O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act. Our agreement would accomplish all of these things and put our struggling state back on a path toward prosperity, improve forest health and community livability, and jump-start rural economies. The Oregon Legislature found time during a contentious session in Salem to pass a resolution supporting our bipartisan agreement. Early indications show we will also receive the support of individual O&C counties that will be most affected by our proposal. The broad and overwhelming local support we have received in Oregon will be crucial to winning the backing of our colleagues in Congress and the approval of the president.
But the process has not been easy. It is not surprising that breaking the gridlock on federal forests through creative thinking and bipartisan compromise has faced criticism. What is surprising and disappointing is that a handful of conservation groups -- including Oregon Wild -- strongly opposed the bipartisan agreement before it was finalized and made public. And despite the major conservation victories included in the recently released discussion draft, Oregon Wild and its friends continue to stick to stale talking points intended to generate public controversy and fear.
County commissioners Pete Sorenson (Lane County) and Bill Hall (Lincoln County) have followed suit by criticizing the O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act in this newspaper, claiming the bipartisan agreement does not do enough for the environment ("Don't sacrifice forests to solve financial crisis," Feb. 29). Their claims are identical to those of Oregon Wild and other groups that have publicly stated they have already compromised long ago on federal forest policy.
They are missing a huge opportunity.
Under the Northwest Forest Plan -- the current law of the land -- hundreds of thousands of acres of Oregon's old growth are open to clear-cutting. While administrative rules and judicial decisions offer some temporary protection for old growth, a stroke of the pen by a future administration, Congress or Supreme Court could mean the liquidation of Oregon's irreplaceable forests.
Our bipartisan plan would provide the first-ever legislative protection for mature and old-growth forests -- offering certainty to Oregonians and finally ending the decades-old controversy that has plagued rural communities. Our plan would also add 58,000 forested acres to the Rogue Wilderness, provide wilderness protection to the Devil's Staircase -- one of Oregon's most rugged and pristine places on the coast -- and add 150 miles of Oregon rivers to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It would mandate that half the trust lands be managed on a long rotation to provide ecological diversity and require an integrated pest management plan.
Naysayers such as Sorenson and Hall and a few of their environmental friends would have you believe these landmark conservation victories in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would be insignificant, despite enthusiastically advocating these same protections for decades. They insist the bipartisan agreement would "liquidate" public lands and take forest management back "a decade or more." These are the same recycled arguments, fear-mongering and distrust that have plagued federal forest policy for decades. Similar strategies have prevented Oregon from crafting a meaningful long-term solution at the expense of our rural communities, our economy and our forests.
It is time to turn the page.
No, we should not return to the unsustainable harvest levels of the 1980s that decimated old growth, harmed threatened species and deteriorated our drinking water. But yes, we can sustainably and responsibly log in younger stands on federal lands to create jobs, provide reduced but certain levels of payments to counties and improve forest health. The bipartisan O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act is a balanced approach that offers Oregonians certainty and opportunity. I will be the first to admit the plan is not perfect and required compromise. But I worked with my Democratic and Republican colleagues in good faith to secure critical support necessary to move a solution forward that works for Oregon. That's what Oregonians expect and deserve.
I am disappointed that instead of joining me and the vast majority of Oregon's elected officials in working out a realistic long-term solution that benefits rural counties and our forests, a small minority continues to offer the public unworkable solutions.
Suggesting, as Sorenson and Hall did in their guest opinion, that rural counties with real unemployment rates near 20 percent should double their property taxes or that the state should raise taxes and divert revenues to counties instead of to struggling state education and health care programs is irresponsible. I would expect more from these commissioners. If they are serious about these "solutions," why haven't they proposed doubling property taxes within their own jurisdictions or approached the state Legislature about increasing state taxes?
I will continue to work with those who want a realistic, long-term solution. I hope interested Oregonians will visit my Web page (defazio.house.gov) to submit meaningful comments on the publicly available discussion draft to make the proposal even stronger. We can break out of the decades-long logjam on federal forest policy, put Oregonians back to work, help save failing rural counties and improve forest health. The O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act is a great start.
Democrat Peter DeFazio represents Oregon's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment