Timber! Forest Service asks states to return cash

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Forest Service is in the business of preventing fires, not starting them.

Yet the agency set off alarms in Congress and state capitols across the West by citing automatic spending cuts as the basis for demanding that dozens of states return $17.9 million in federal subsidies. And it's all come down to a bureaucratic squabble over whether the money is subject to so-called sequestration because of the year it was paid - 2013 - as the Obama administration contends, or exempt from the cuts because of the year it was generated - 2012 - as the states insist.

Right now, it's a standoff heightened by history and hard fiscal realities. But with taxpayer cash scarce, both sides are digging in: The Forest Service has to slash 5 percent of its budget under sequestration. The states, meanwhile, have depended for decades on a share of revenue from timber cut on federal land. Perhaps least willing to compromise are members of Congress who are up for re-election next year and are loath to let go of money that benefits potential voters back home.

It's not clear who gets to decide or whether the question ends up in court. But lines have been drawn.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130503/DA61UKEO0.html

---

In this April 26, 2013, file photo, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the House Appropriations Committee, subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget hearing on forest service. The U.S. Forest Service is in the business of preventing fires, not starting them. Yet the agency set off alarms in Congress and state capitols across the West by citing the automatic spending cuts as the basis for demanding that dozens of states return $17.9 million in federal subsidies. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

[Xipe Totec]

1. Hardball. Love it! nt

[Munificence]

2. I need to find out more on this

because it is interesting. Interesting in how the revenue streams operate when timber is sold on NF land in states....I will admit that I am somewhat ignorant to this.

I was however raised in an area with a lot of NF land, around 280K acres in the county I was raised in. I can see from a standpoint that the state is maintaining these roads and the property itself is producing zero income for the county or municipality that governs the area. Even if it was in private ownership and there owners were taxed at $10/acre annually you'd have an additional $2.8 million in tax revenue for the county I was raised in. So when the federal government decides to sell of their timber how much of the revenue goes to state or county coffers?

I loved the fact that we had this land available to do things on from a public perspective, however when no revenue in the form of property taxes is available to fix the roads and such what does one do? I think if the government wants to own land in states then it should have to subsidize the area for up-keep and lack of revenue generated from those lands. Now on the other hand, state property is totally different in my mind.

Again, I am ignorant to how this is all handled and need to go educate myself.

[Sunlei]

3. The federal gov DOI/BLM pays to maintain the roads on our public lands.

They maintain the leases and hand out the federal contracts. Our public lands are leased to ajoining private land owners for oil, gas, cattle grazing at a low "subsidized" price. Thousands of miles of fencing, replanting grasses, reopening springs damaged by livestock cost a lot of money. Low lease prices do not cover the costs., its like welfare for some lucky private landowners.

Usually its the DOI, BLM who are mandated to 'manage Americans public lands." They lease the public land and they pay out the federal dollars to the local states to do a lot of the work.

Some of our states like Nevada are 80% or so public lands. Other states have much less.

The forrest service is different, I think they just manage the timber resourses. We have less and less timber that is owned by all of us Americans. Most of that is private owned, they probably shouldn't get any more federal welfare.

[wordpix]

5. "if the government wants to own land in states then it should have to subsidize the area for...

"... up-keep and lack of revenue"

First of all, the federal gov. owned western states' land well before they WERE states so whatever rules have come along, the feds owned first and that means all of us. Secondly, many of the roads through the NFs were built by logging companies. As far as I'm concerned, let them go back to forest. If they're state roads, the state should fix them; if they're federal highways, that's the feds' job. As for logging roads, probably no one thought to write maintenance into the gold rush agreements the Forest Service wrote or continues to write with the logger robber barons.

cry me a river and let the roads go back to nature

[Sunlei]

6. "We" own the land, any revenue generated after the private corps take their cut goes to us

Thats our federal revenue from the lease of our public lands that helps pay for some of the benefits we get from our gov.

Yes, some states have state parklands, revenue from that land goes to the states.

I would think most Americans want our Gov do what the DOI is paid to do, manage our PUBLIC resourses for hopefully hundreds of years or more.

I'm not sure about Canada but I think about 90% of their lands are public lands, Gov. managed.

[24601]

4. Tailor-made for a court to consolidate the cases from all 41 states and make a technical decision.