Proposed national-forest land sale tilted in Washington's, Oregon's favor

WASHINGTON — More than a quarter of the $800 million the Bush administration plans to raise by selling national-forest land would benefit rural schools in Washington and Oregon, though just 6 percent of the sales would occur in those forest-rich states.

Only about 10 percent of the proceeds would go toward rural schools in the South and Midwest, the two regions where more than a third of the sales of 300,000-plus acres would occur, according to an analysis by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The proposed land sale is part of the administration's plan for reauthorizing a 2000 law set to expire Sept. 30 that has pumped more than $2 billion into rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land.

The so-called "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in Oregon and other Western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

Under the proposal, Oregon alone would get $162 million in exchange for 10,581 acres. Washington would get $46.9 million in exchange for 7,516 acres.

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs U.S. forest policy, said the law was devised to help those rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal lands. Parcels proposed for sale are isolated, difficult or expensive to manage, or they no longer meet Forest Service needs, he said.

"They are not evenly distributed" throughout the country, Rey said, although Congress could adjust the funding formula as it sees fit. The plan also calls for a phased reduction in funding to zero by 2011.

David Carr, public-lands director for the nonprofit law center, called the regional disparity unfair and said the land sales would set a dangerous precedent. The center's analysis is based on how states fared under the Forest Service land-sales program this year.

"Selling off America's natural heritage is not the way to fund government services," Carr said. "We need to be adding to the public-land base in the South, not holding a bake sale on bits and pieces of our limited national forests for short-term budget needs."

Even prominent Republican leaders question the plan.

"Why sell most of the lands in those states that don't get much money from these payments and very little land in the states that get the most money?" asked Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The New Mexico Republican said he wanted to "keep an open mind" about the idea. His state would get $2.3 million, just one-fifth of 1 percent of the overall proceeds, in exchange for selling 8,000 acres, or 2 percent of the sales.

Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., also questioned the proposal, saying there was no guarantee money generated by the sales would stay in Missouri.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the chief architects of the rural-schools law, called questions raised by Talent and Domenici legitimate and said they were a key reason he opposes the plan. "I don't want to pit your beautiful forest against school stability in Missouri," Wyden, a Democrat, told Talent last week.

Wyden and other Oregon lawmakers say the state receives so much money under the rural-schools law because it was hurt the most by federal policies that restricted logging in the 1990s.

Other states "aren't half-owned by the federal government, and they didn't see a 95 percent harvest reduction on federal lands," as happened in Oregon and Washington, said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

Money from the six-year-old "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in Oregon and other Western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

Andy Stahl, of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said the land-sale plan puts the inherent inequality of the county payments law in stark relief. "Special places in other states are proposed to be sold so Oregon can get its pork," he said.

Carr said he would oppose the plan even if formulas were adjusted to give more money to Southern states.

"We don't think they should be selling land in Oregon or Virginia or Alabama," he said. "The need is to fill in the gaps, not get rid of what they've acquired."