All right. I got to figure out how to make that
list. There's lists you want to be on and there's
lists that you don't want to be on. Welcome to
County Connection. the official podcast of the
Washington State Association of Counties, where
we dive into the legislative issues shaping the
future of our communities. From budgets to public
safety, infrastructure to elections, we'll break
down what's happening in Olympia and how it impacts
counties from across the Evergreen State. Stay
informed, stay engaged, and join us as we amplify
the voice of Washington's 39 counties. All right,
welcome to The County Connection, the official
podcast of the Washington State Association of
Counties. I'm Paul Jewell, your host and government
relations director for the Washington State Association
of Counties, and I'm here today with a special
guest in the studio, someone we haven't talked
to before, Jason Spadaro with the Washington
Forest Protection Association. Jason, you're
the executive director over there in your office.
Actually, if we get on the roof of this building,
I'll bet I can see your office. I don't think
I could throw a rock that far, but I'll bet I
can see your office. Bet you could. Yeah, we're
down in the port district of Olympia. Yeah, just
a couple blocks away. By the farmer's market.
Yeah. Five or six blocks from here. So you and
I have worked together actually on quite a few
things. Even before you were the executive director
over at WFPA, you and I met originally, boy,
was it 2019 or 2018 at Skamania Lodge. With that
four -day odyssey, do you remember that, that
we did talking about the adaptive management
program with DNR and a whole bunch of other folks?
I think that was the very first time I ever met
you, if I'm not mistaken. I think that's right.
Let's back up just a little bit. I barely introduced
you. barely got to tell people who you are. So
once again, you're Jason Spadaro. You're the
executive director of the Washington Forest Protection
Association. You're another association right
here in Olympia. Quickly, why don't you just
tell us what WFPA does? What is the Washington
Forest Protection Association? Just so that folks
who are listening who may not be familiar with
WFPA have an idea of, you know, why you're here.
Yeah. Well, the name implies Washington Forest
Protection Association. It was originally founded
as a firefighting cooperative to protect forest
land in Washington state from wildfire. Oh, I
didn't know that. That's interesting. Yeah. It
was private companies that, you know, we're over
an over 100 year organization. So in the 1920s
and 30s, there was a need for protection of forest
land from wildfire, ravages of wildfire. Still
is today. Still is today. A group of private
companies formed a cooperative, in essence, to
provide funding and support for each other on
wildfire protection. As time goes on, the simple
story is that as time goes on, the state takes
responsibility for wildfire suppression. Mostly
through DNR, right? Through DNR. They realize
that it is a critical need and it doesn't work
so well that those that have the means to form
a cooperative and protect their lands from wildfire
and those that don't. So you could have potential
for clear winners and losers. The state takes
it on as a public responsibility. But there's
still private firefighting companies out there,
right? There are, yeah. Can you hire them to
come and protect your property? Or do they mostly
contract with, like the DNR and other... They
mostly contract with DNR, but we as landowners
can and do hire independent contractors to do...
wildfire suppression work or protect our property
lines our boundaries so that you know in some
cases maybe maybe this is maybe more prevalent
with U .S. Forest Service firefighting in the
past they may have a less active approach and
more more hands off and let wildfire burn and
that if it's affecting private property If it's
on our property, we have the ability to go in
and take direct action to protect our private
resources, our private land. Yeah, the fire doesn't
necessarily just stop because it hits a private
property. No, it doesn't. It doesn't go, oh,
wait a minute, that's not Forest Service land
anymore. Let's make a left turn here. But back
to your point about private contractors, insurers
now are even hiring. to provide protection for
assets that an insurance company is providing
insurance for. Sure. Preventing the loss of those
assets could be cheaper in some cases than actually
paying out for that loss. Correct, correct, yeah.
But that is the evolution of WFPA was wildfire
protection. But you're not doing that now, right?
No. It's a completely different organization.
State has taken that over, took that over in
the 1950s. We reformed, WFPA reformed itself
to be... the association representing the interest
of private forest landowners in the state of
Washington, in the legislature, in public policy
conversation, with a communications program,
advocacy needs and whatnot. So we currently we
have about four million acres of private forest
lands that constitute the membership of WFPA,
largest landowner. Member of WFPA is Weyerhaeuser
Corporation or the Weyerhaeuser Company. We've
got Sierra Pacific and Green Diamond and Manulife
and Hampton Lumber. So we have corporations that
are members. We have family -owned companies
that are members. We have institutional timberland
managers. And then we have all the way down to
small individual landowners that might have a
couple hundred acres of forest land. the the
very small forest land owners, primarily There's
an association called Washington Farm Forestry
Association that represents their interests.
Okay. So what would you consider small? Because
obviously Weyerhaeuser on a scale is huge, and
there's no one bigger than Weyerhaeuser, right?
Yeah. But you mentioned others like Hampton.
Companies like Port Blakely. Port Blakely, yeah,
there you go. And Wagen on the east side. So
we've got the whole range from very large to
midsize to small. for the forest practices purposes
is a small landowner is less than 500 acres.
Okay. So we do have some landowners that are
categorized as small, that are less than 500
as members of WFPA. So there's some overlap in
our association at WFPA and Washington farm forestry
on that small end, but the Washington farm forestry,
we work very closely with them because they're
small forest landowners like we are. or forest
landowners in general, like we are, and we have
common interests, their membership is quite often
they're landowners that have a mixture of forest
land and agriculture or some other use. So forestry
might not be their primary purpose for owning
the land. And WFPA, like I said, 4 million acres.
And we have a staff. I'm the executive director.
We have a communications program. We have a forest
policy program. We have a tax and economics program.
And we have a government relations program. Okay.
Okay. Well, you know, at the county's association,
we have a lot of investment in. forestry as well
from a policy point of view and counties have
a lot of interest in what happens on their forest
lands most of the forest lands that i imagine
that are your members are not in cities, right?
They're going to be in the unincorporated lands
of counties under county jurisdiction. But then,
of course, you know, the activity that occurs
on those lands has a direct economic impact on
the county's economy overall. And counties also
get revenue from forest harvest, which is kind
of a unique relationship for resource lands in
Washington state. For instance, we don't get
revenue from agricultural harvest necessarily
like we do from forest harvest. And that's kind
of an interesting story that's evolved over time.
But we also have a huge interest in wildfire
prevention because, as I mentioned before, you
know, maybe the wildfire in the opposite case
actually starts on private land and then goes
over into public land. Wildfire doesn't necessarily
respect. property boundaries, right? And so we're
all kind of in it together where wildfire protection
and prevention is concerned. I know there's a
lot going on kind of in the forestry arena right
now, and I want to talk about that a little bit.
But before we get into that, how did you get
into forestry? Was this a career choice? Did
you start out kind of as a forester or maybe
a logger, or was it something your family did?
And how did you get connected with WFPA? Yeah.
Good. It's a long story, but I'll try and be
brief. I did, uh, grew up in Auburn, Washington
and a friend of mine, his father was a contract
logger. So I would, you know, do things on the
landing or help out a little bit. I always had
an affinity to the natural environment. Okay.
My, I'll never, I always tell the story of. Never
forget, my high school aptitude test said I should
be an accountant. I went to University of Washington
and took my first accounting course, and I decided
this wasn't what I wanted to do, counting debits
and credits and T -charts. So I went to forestry,
moved over to the forestry college at University
of Washington, graduated there, became a forester.
and went to work as an entry -level forester
for a family -owned company in the Columbia Gorge.
Okay. And I fast -forward a decade, and I pursued
an MBA and learned all about accounting and finance.
All the good stuff. All the good stuff. Everything
a forester really, really, really wants to learn
about. And I eventually became president of the
company that I worked for, a non -family member
as president of the company. So was this the
same forestry company that you'd started with?
It is, yeah. Good for you. That's an unusual
tale in today's world. It is. I worked for 31
years for SDS Lumber Company based out of Bingen,
Washington. until I started my own consulting
business when SDS was sold in 2021. Shout out
to Bingen right there along the Columbia River
Gorge. In Klickitat County. In Klickitat County.
So for those of us who know our geography in
Washington State, shout out to the folks in Bingen.
Yeah. And so I became president of the company.
I was involved with WFPA as a member. SDS had
timberlands and mill operations. In the Columbia
Gorge, was on the board of WFPA, became the president
of the board of WFPA. And then the timing coincided
with the owner's sale of SDS. I started a consulting
business called Noble Forest Company. And Mark
Domet, our executive director at WFPA, passed
suddenly of a heart attack. Yeah, that was just
a few years ago. That was... About four years
ago this time, if I'm not mistaken, around in
July. Yeah, I know a lot of our members will
remember Mark. He was a former senator as well.
He was. He's been around for a long time and
certainly a longtime director of the WFPA. And
a great friend. And he pulled me into the board
of WFPA when we joined as a member and pulled
me into the executive committee and helped. paved
the way for me to become president of the association
board of directors. But I stepped in on an interim
basis when Mark passed, uh, just because of my
career path. And, um, so here I am four years
later, still as the executive director of the
association. Now you're stuck. Well, I'll say
this, uh, forestry is something that I'm really
passionate about. The contributions and this
industry is something I'm very passionate about.
We at SDS, we were kind of the heartbeat of the
community and not the only part. Agriculture,
natural resources were really the foundation
of the communities that we live in. And so I'm
very passionate about both industries. I'm an
agricultural landowner and a forest landowner
myself personally. Those resource -based industries,
though, they drive many of those communities,
right? I mean, people live and they work in those
industries. They live in that environment. They
work in that environment. And it really, it's
not just from an economic perspective or point
of view. It's also from a very, very much a cultural
point of view. Correct. And a way of life. It's
a way of life. Yeah. So I'm very passionate about
protecting our forest industry and protecting
our rural communities and those natural resource
industries that are part of the fabric of those
rural communities. So that's why I do this. As
we talked earlier, you know, it can be frustrating
at times being in Olympia and working with state
agencies or elected officials that some understand
the importance of that cultural importance of
natural resource industries to rural Washington.
Others don't. And we have to bridge that divide
and work together to solve these issues. Well,
that's a familiar challenge that we have as counties
as well as I'm sure you can imagine. I kind of
mentioned a few things that we had common interest
in, but where forest land and resource land management
is concerned, I mean, counties are kind of unique,
I always think, because we have a really diverse
array of... We're in this kind of land use regulatory
seat as counties, right? So we have to determine
what you can do with your property, what you
can't do with your property, what permits might
be required, et cetera. But we're not necessarily
in the regulatory business around harvest or
other forest practices, right? That's a different
agency. But we certainly have an interest in
how that occurs because we have a revenue interest
in that. But we have a cultural interest in it.
We have a general economic interest in it beyond
direct revenue. We have a recreational interest
in it, right? A natural resource and overall
environmental interest in it, much more so than
a lot of the other folks who play in this game.
We find ourselves working with you guys quite
a bit. And I was just wondering from your kind
of perspective, why do you think that is? And
where do you think our interests really align
from the county side versus the WFPA side? And
what I got from you and your membership is you're
really kind of representing the timber industry
folks, the landowners, right? The people who
have a real... have a lot of investment, I guess,
in the land itself and the resources that exist
on that land. And in many cases, not in every
case, because I know that there's mineral resources
and other things, right, and there's agricultural
activities beyond timber. But in many cases,
a lot of the value, if not the majority of the
value, is in that timber itself. Even though
you and I work together a lot, we don't always
see eye to eye on everything, right? We're not
always taking the same position and perfectly
aligned on different things, which is understandable
because we have... Lots of different members.
Yeah, you have a diverse range of counties that
you represent. But you do too, right? You have
a diverse range of landowners. And I'm sure we
both struggle to kind of manage that side of
it a little bit. But maybe where do you see WFPA's
interests aligned with the county's interests?
And why do you think that is? My boss, when I
first started in this industry as a forester,
he was a former state legislator. He was in the
legislature in the 1970s. Who was that? Bob Chamberlain
was his name from White Salmon, Washington. And
he always described to me that the county commissioners
and county government is the hardest job because
you're so close to the constituents. And you're
part of the constituency. You're part of the
community as a county commissioner or a city
council member or whatnot. Yeah. And so, you
know, where we as forest landowners are part
of that community, so are the counties. And we
all know that forests can provide multiple benefits.
Join us in that, that they can provide economic
activity. Sure. They can provide recreation.
They can provide conservation, wildlife habitat,
etc. Clean water. Clean air. And maintaining
the multiple uses of forest land and the benefits
that they provide, a county elected official.
feels that they feel the economic impacts in
their community they feel it from the constituents
they live it themselves they're part of the community
they feel the pain when a mill closes yeah they
feel the pain when regulations come that that
restrict act you know economic activity of private
forest land they also see the opportunities of
recreation and tourism right and and new opportunities
for forest but those are you know we've all lived
this I lived in Skamania County. Skamania County
is very near and dear to my heart, as is Klickatek
County. You know, when the Columbia Gorge National
Scenic Area Act was created and a large swath
of state, federal, and private lands were restricted
for scenic considerations, there was a promise
in that act as an example of... dual purposes,
economic development and conservation. And what
we see is a lot of accomplishments on the conservation
side, not as much on the economic. I would argue
not even not as much, but it's by multiple factor
less on the economic development side. We just
don't, the promises of tourism jobs replacing
your core industries or the promise of service
jobs, providing family wage jobs to replace mill
jobs that are lost. It never really materializes
like it's promised. No, I think that's right.
And we feel that. We all feel that being part
of the community, including counties. I mean,
there are some rare cases where... You know,
some communities, distinct communities in the
right area at the right time have done a really
good job at redefining themselves, right? But
it's a matter of, you know, it's a matter of
location, of timing, and of, in my opinion, some
unique circumstances that they were able to take
advantage of. And others think that that opportunity
is available to them as well, but it's such a
great challenge. And to take out, you know, a
resource -based industry or significantly alter
it. in a way and think you're going to recover
rapidly, uh, I think has been a pretty big mistake
in a lot of places in Washington state, especially
in rural environments. So often we, we see these
either or, you know, decisions or things characterized.
And it's not, it's not that resource management
is contrary to tourism and recreation. We can
have both. We have to balance as a state. We
have to balance those. the interest we can with
forest land have recreation and tourism and high
quality environment but we can also have the
jobs and the economy and the productive lands
and the building materials that we need in the
state of washington so this is either or yeah
so this is an interesting line of discussion
not one that i had thought we were going to go
down, but I'm just going to run with it. I think
it's an interesting point that you just made.
And I think it's a point that a lot of folks,
and I don't mean this in an offensive way at
all, but people who are more biased towards,
say, economic activity and revenue, it's an argument
that they want to make. And I think they want
it to be true. But in some cases, And I'm just
going to throw this out for your opinion, Jason.
In some cases, aren't there just tradeoffs that
we're going to have to face and make when we're
talking about environmental benefits versus commerce,
right? When we're talking about conservation
versus development, when we're talking about,
you know, greater societal benefits versus private
wealth opportunities. Aren't we just going to
have to make some choices at some point and say,
you know, we're not going to do that there. And
these are the reasons why. And we think that
these reasons are important. And that's just
the way it's going to have to be. And I think
we have made some of those choices in the past.
Not in a non -controversial way, right? And from
some people's point of view, not in a non -destructive
way. Whereas by non -destructive, I mean, you
know, entire communities have been dismantled.
You know, their industry is gone. They're young
people gone. Their ability to be self -sustaining
gone. Right. But, you know, that's done for different
reasons, whether it's endangered species preservation
or environmental benefits or otherwise. Is it
really possible to change that kind of. you know,
model in favor of something that is kind of what
you talk about, more balanced in every single
instance. Well, you'll hear my perspective, which
is admittedly a very rural community and resource
dependent perspective. And that is that we have
the strictest environmental standards for practicing
forestry or forest management in the state of
Washington. We have provided Through the Forest
and Fish Law and then the HCP, we have removed
culverts and roads and restored salmon habitat.
And we have the reforestation requirements we
have in the state of Washington, the clear -cut
harvest size limitations, unstable slopes. There's
a litany of resource protection objectives in
the forest practices rules. And we have... We're
doing it sustainably. And we can't do it. We
can't set aside our forest land, whether it's
national forest, state land, or private land,
without having consequences. And so as long as
we're doing it sustainably and responsibly, we
have to maintain that balance. We can have both.
Oftentimes, what we hear from the urban communities
is they want... They're having their impact on
the environment. Puget Sound trough, the whole
Puget Sound trough. You have high density of
development. You have impacts to salmon habitat,
wildlife habitat. High density development in,
ironically, some of the most ecosystem sensitive
areas in the entire state. And so how do those
folks view the rural communities? The rural communities
should be preserved or... or restricted to protect
the environment where in their backyard, they've
had a huge footprint and a huge impact. And we,
we can't do that in the state of Washington.
If we want to have a successful economy in the
state of Washington and the food products and
the timber products that we need to supply to
the urban areas, we have to have basic industries.
And when the balance swings too far, which arguably,
It has swung too far, and people are rethinking,
how do we manage our national forest lands? How
do we manage our state lands? Balance swings
too far, we get out of balance, and we have winners
and losers. Too often, the rural communities
are the losers, and the urban communities are
the winners. This is a fascinating conversation.
And I mean, you're hitting on stuff that we hit
on all the time, right? I mean, you know, the
difference between herbal, herbal. That's why
we love podcasts to capture it all. The difference
between urban and rural communities and some
of the. Some of the friction, right, and tension
there. And the fact that, you know, ironically
in Washington State, we have this whole growth
management regime that, you know, says, okay,
if you've already developed in a certain area,
we want you to develop that one more and make
it more dense. And like I said, in Washington,
you know. In many cases, in most cases, especially
in the greater Puget Sound region, those are
some of the most sensitive ecological areas you
could imagine, right? But they're already developed,
so we're just going to develop them more. And
then, you know, those areas look to the urban
areas to try to offset, right, to mitigate, to
create that protection. You, as forest landowners,
have been looked at in many... kind of in that
way. And I don't want to get into the urban and
rural fight because I don't think we're going
to solve this on our podcast. And it's just a
real struggle societally that we're all dealing
with. And I think is one of those discussions
for the ages that we may never solve. But if
we do, we'll look back at this and go, wow, great
on us for solving it. But it is a real challenge.
And the idea that I love a solution where everybody
wins, but the idea that, you know, we're always
going to have a solution where there's never
a winner. I'm sorry, where there's never a situation
where you have winners and losers to me is almost
un... realistic. I just don't think that's possible
in every case. And as a society, we have to make
a decision at some point as to what's more valuable
and what's less valuable to us. And as thought
leaders and leaders in our groups and communities,
it's kind of up to us to make those decisions
or the people that we represent, at least, right?
And we try to help guide them through that. One
of the things that are a parallel that I see
here is, you know, in many ways, A lot of emphasis
has been put, and you touched on this a little
bit, on forest lands to mitigate or save or correct
a lot of the environmental damage that has been
done in other areas, whether they're urban or
not. It feels like forest lands are... I don't
want to say picked on because they're super valuable.
And I think you'll agree with this. They're super
valuable from an environmental point of view,
right? The forests are the lungs of the earth
in many ways, right? They really do a great job
of cleaning the air and sequestering carbon and
storing carbon, whether it's in the trees themselves
or the soils or the other plants. are part of
that forest ecosystem. They do a great job of
cleaning our water and providing water supply
and water storage, right? They do a great job
of providing shade and respite and habitat for
a lot of species that we rely upon for a whole
host of different reasons. They do a great job
of providing building materials and other materials
for fuel and otherwise. But still they're looked
to in many, many ways. as also this area that
needs to be really regulated and needs to essentially
provide all these benefits to offset a lot of
the damage that's occurring in other areas. And
I'm wondering why you think that is, number one.
And then number two, you know, I want to talk
a little bit about the state riparian. that you
and I are doing as well and how that might relate.
But comment on the first piece. And I'd like
to get your perspective on that because it kind
of feels like, and I'm going to throw it out
there. It's controversial, but I'm going to throw
it out there. I think others, I think our forest
practices in Washington are probably the most
stringent anywhere. And correct me if I'm wrong
on that. Maybe California is more restrictive
than Washington. But we're certainly world class.
We're right there. We're world class. Yeah. No
doubt. So whether we're as restrictive in every
instance as California or not, we are one of
the most regulated and probably one of the better
places from an environmental sustainability point
of view to grow and harvest timber. And we're
one of the best locations in the world. to do
it yes right um so with that in mind why do you
think the constant emphasis continues to be placed
on the uplands on forest lands etc um while others
and i'm going to say it it's controversial are
basically getting a free pass yeah the simple
answer is because it's easier and it's it's too
hard to address the issues in the urban environments
in the industrial environments in the too hard
like practically too hard politically both practically
and politically like you have a large number
of people that if you now if we as a state said
you know the puyallup river is an example and
maybe that's not a good one to use but uh that
that we need landowners who own property along
the Puyallup River or whatever to provide riparian
buffers or minimize the impact of thousands of
drain fields and nutrient loading into a river.
The number of people that it's affecting and
the cost and the difficulty of getting that done
is significantly harder. It's then looking at
pointing the finger at somebody else i mean to
me it's a lot of hypocrisy that to be pointing
at other land use saying well i'm not part of
the problem don't inconvenience me with the solution
let's just go lock up the rural lands from being
managed or utilized to mitigate my impacts it's
just easier to do that and the Forest Practices
Regulatory System is a mechanism. There's a tool
there to achieve that in the forestry world with
us having a Forest Practices Act that restricts
us. Those restrictions is what creates our strict
environmental standards, forest management, timber
harvest, road construction. Everything we do
is done in the most environmentally responsible
way. So it's a good tool in that regard, but
it's also a tool that can be used to put more
burden on us to mitigate for other people's impacts.
And you're absolutely right, is that we as landowners
do feel that way, that we're providing a lot
of benefit to society in water quality improvements.
Carbon sequestration. We're providing benefits
to society that are not recognized at all. So
let's touch on that a little bit. I'm going to
hit every controversial subject we possibly can
today. Because I hear that from the timber industry
quite a bit. And I think there's definitely arguments
to be made there. And others say the same thing.
We'll hear from the agricultural industry oftentimes
about the societal benefits that they provide
and how that's uncompensated, et cetera. But
when we think about, let's just talk about forest
land by itself. I mean, it's not taxed, you know
what I mean, in the same way. that other lands
are taxed. It's, it's what, 10 cents on the dollar
compared to, you know, acre by acre of other
property, whether it's residential or even ag
land or, you know, industrial property or certainly
commercial property, it's pennies on the dollar
by comparison. Now, at the same time, it's got
a lot of restrictions on it, right? That you
can't, you can't do certain things. But when
you look at the, the, the ability to grow and
harvest timber and not pay the same burden in
property taxes, isn't there some level of compensation
that those landowners are getting for providing
some of those societal benefits in the form of
those tax breaks? Well, I'm glad you brought
this up because this is a topic area where at
times over the years, counties and landowners
have been at odds with each other. And we're
talking about it all the time. with our members
from a whole variety of different perspectives.
You know our members are really diverse, right?
We've got members who never saw a tree they didn't
want to cut, and we've got members who never
saw a tree they didn't want to save, and a whole
lot of members in between, right? And so we're
talking about issues from a forest land management
point of view all the time, and this is one that
does come up quite a bit. We in the forest industry
like to point out the origin of current use taxation.
is that if we want forest lands to remain in
forest, if the land value, the soil that the
trees are growing on, if that land was taxed
at its highest and best potential use, and what
led to current use tax program was landowners
being... assessed taxes that they couldn't afford
to pay or they would have to cut trees in order
to pay high land value taxation and they've ran
out of trees to be able to do it they lose their
land to tax foreclosure because so a more equitable
way a lot of times people like to say well you're
getting a tax break as a forest landowners because
you're paying small land value tax But what we've
done is created a harvest tax. At the time that
we harvest, we pay 5 % of the gross receipts
of the value of the crop that is harvested. So
in many ways, it's incentivizing keeping forests
in forest or resource production in some way
and disincentivizing the conversion. Now, how
effective is that at disincentivizing conversion
of forest land? That's another matter. It's about
supply and demand and where do we build houses.
But otherwise, if we don't have current use taxation,
landowners can't afford to keep land in resource
production, whether it's agriculture or timber.
We pay a harvest tax at time of harvest where
agriculture. Right. They don't. They certainly
don't. And let's let's let's let's just for the
lay listener out there, let's talk about why
does it feel like every podcast that I end up
talking to someone about ends up talking about
taxation? But I just want to quickly explain
what current use taxation is, because some people
may not know what you're referring to. So property,
when it's assessed by the county, it's assessed
at its highest and best use. So say if you have
an empty lot that's surrounded by high -rise
buildings in a commercial zone, that property
is going to be valued as if... a high -rise building
could be built on it, assuming that's allowed.
And so it's going to have a much higher value
than, say, a piece of property that's not available
for that use. Let's say it's only available for
single -family residential home building or something
like that. So the assessor will look at, okay,
what can this property be used for? They'll do
an evaluation of similarly -sized properties
in a similar area that could be used for that
purpose, and will value it accordingly. Current
use classification says, regardless of where
my property is located, regardless of what I
might be able to do with it at some point in
the future, I get the benefit of what I'm doing
with it now for an evaluation of value to basically
assess what my property taxes might be. And where
forestry is concerned, That property tax assessment
and the assignment of value is actually done
by the state in your particular case. And the
discount compared to every other current use
classification, because it's available for forest
land, it's available for ag land, and it's available
for what we call open space. So land that's not
necessarily commercial timber land or land that's
not necessarily utilized for grazing or other
agricultural purposes, but maybe has habitat.
or view shed value or something like that can
also benefit through this current use classification
in different ways. And I don't want to go into
all the different technical details because there's
all kinds of things like public benefit rating
systems and other things like that we don't have
to talk about because that doesn't necessarily
apply to forest land. But yours actually comes
from the state. And it is, in most cases, you
know... 10 cents on the dollar or less, depending
on where it's located and what you can do with
it. But you also, in addition to that, have an
excise tax. So when the timber itself is harvested,
you pay, is it 5 % of the stumpage value? Yes,
5 % of the stumpage value. Okay. And that's not
actually the landowner that pays that, right?
It's whoever's buying the logs that pays that.
No, it is the landowner. And if you sell a stumpage
contract and somebody else is harvesting on your
land, you can assign that as part of their obligation
to pay that. But in most cases, landowners are
paying. They're selling logs off of their land,
and they're paying the forest products excise
tax themselves. Okay. What about forested properties
that never harvest? Well, this is where the current
use tax system, I believe, could use some improvement
because I am 100 % in agreement with my county
in Klickitat County, the assessor there, concerns
about people enrolling forest land. in the forest
land tax program but never intending to harvest
the trees so they get that current use benefit
so they get the benefit where the county gets
made they don't get made whole but they get they
get revenue is at the time of harvest so it really
relies on somebody actively managing forest land
so that the county gets its tax base And there
are a lot of people that enroll in forest tax
program with no intention. They maybe even play
the game of a 20 acre parcel with one acre carved
out for residents and say 19 of it is in current
use forest. And it's really just a park for them
or a large backyard that they never plan to harvest.
And there should be requirements that if you're
going to enroll in the program, you are actively
managing your forest land. Because the conversion
of forest land into 20 -acre parcels, when you
add that up across the state, if those lands
are not being managed, that affects the mills
that we have in the state of Washington who rely
on that timber supply to keep their mills operating.
And I didn't mention earlier when I mentioned...
Our close relationship with WFFA, the Farm Forestry,
small landowners, we also have a very close relationship
with American Forest Resource Council, AFRC,
that represents the mills that operate in the
state of Washington, primarily on public timber
supply. But we need those mills. If we don't
have mills, we don't have... an incentive to
keep forest land in forest. We don't have investments
in thinning and fuel reduction that keep forest
healthy. And if we have a lot of jobs, we don't
have the jobs. And if we have a lot of land that's
being, the current use tax system is being gamed,
so to speak, and not actively being managed,
that is an impact not only to the mills, but
also to the counties and their revenue. How do
you, how important is it? It's really fascinating
when you sit back and you think about all this
stuff. And I love conversations like this because
you just go from layer of complexity to layer
of complexity. You're right. It's all connected.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, right? So you've
got these tax incentives out there that are current
use classification. They're intended to essentially
help keep working forests as working forests
so that there's not this. huge, tremendous tax
burden that someone can't afford to pay, right?
Where they have to make a choice between do they
keep it working forest or not? Do they take care
of their property or not? Do they make the investments
so that they can harvest, so that they can reap
the benefits of harvest that we all benefit from,
frankly, right? As a society, as well as, you
know, from the private profiteers, you know,
from the, which are the landowners and the mill
owners and the people who get paid to do all
that work to the people, to the consumers who
actually use the product. Right. We all benefit
from that, from a whole variety of different
perspectives and, you know, personal wealth,
economic wealth, overall, you know, community
wealth and and carbon storage and products. And,
you know, all the other things that while those
forests are growing, that they provide benefits
for. Right. All of that. So that's all good.
But then there's other connections that are made
there as well. So that current use tax classification
is based on that particular issue and is meant
to prevent forest land conversion because we
need working forests. But then we have, admittedly,
and we all know it's happening, people that are
gaming the system that are also taking advantage
of that current use classification. My estimate
is it's a lot of people that are doing that who
have no intention of ever harvesting. But at
the same time, their property is providing other
benefits to the community, to the society, to
the environment, et cetera. How important do
you think that current use classification is
to preventing those properties? from being converted
to other uses? Or do you think it's not important
at all because they're not really using them
for timber harvest anyways? In most cases, they
don't have the ability to break the land down
into five acres. The zoning won't allow it. Right.
So they're down at a lot size, like a 20 is most
common, where they can have a significant portion
of it in current use tax. and they have their
residence, and they have no intention of ever
harvesting it. But if they have the potential
of breaking it into smaller -sized parcels and
selling them and encouraging more development
and more conversion laws, I guess it probably
helps them keep from doing that. If they're in
a 40 -acre zone and they've got a 20 -acre lot,
though, that's not a possibility. Right. So we've
just attached another string to this issue. And
then you mentioned the mills, right? And how
beneficial it would be if some of these properties
did start harvesting and providing wood supply
to those mills and that would affect the markets,
et cetera, et cetera. What do you think would
happen if the law were modified somehow? put
some new restrictions on that. And we were able
to, and I don't know how this would be done,
but we've been certainly talking about it here
at WASAC, if we were able to actually better
enforce that requirement that you actively manage
your property for commercial timber harvest as
a requirement, how do you think that would, if
zoning prohibits people from converting to another
use, do you think they actually would harvest
more? It's a good question. You know, my conversations
with some counties has been, you know, more about
how do the do the counties already have the tools
to enforce designated forest land today? Do they
need legislation to in order to force landowners
to prove that they're actively managing their
forests or do they already have the tools? I
think they already have the tools. Yeah, I would
disagree. Okay, so then maybe we need to give
them the tools. But I do know the counties where
I have land have been much more questioning about
my intent and having proof of actively managing
forest land, having to resubmit your forest management
plan, provide evidence of your following through
on some of that forest management plan. or they
threaten to remove you from the forest land tax
program. There's a pretty stiff penalty for being
removed from that thing. Yes. Like isn't it 10
years back taxes or seven? Seven. I believe it's
seven years back taxes when you drop out. Yeah.
And so I, I, I welcome that like whatever, whatever's
needed, would they actively manage their forest
land and provide us a supply of timber to keep
rural economies running? Probably not. They're
probably going to thin forest, but even then
it's better than, It's better keeping it in forest
and having light management than having it converted
completely to non -forest reuse or never managed.
Do you think the fact that some people are gaming
the system, do you think that hurts the people
that really are in the commercial forest industry?
Yes. It gives the whole program a black eye,
so to speak. It is a critical program to keeping
forest land in forest. people that are abusing
it. I'm super excited about finding a way to
make this work better with you, Jason. Yeah,
I didn't even know this was going to happen on
this podcast. You probably didn't either. Well,
there's an association for the county assessors,
isn't there? There is, yeah. There is, yeah.
No, this is a vexing issue that our members have
been talking about for a few years off and on.
And it's one that's interesting, I think, to
a lot of us. And I agree with you. I think it
does undermine the program for the legitimate
users. And it would be great to find some way
to... you know, make sure that those people that
are taking advantage of something that they really
shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of are
not. Or, you know, and or, you know, if we could
provide additional benefits to a resource -based
industry that really is one of the foundational
industries of Washington State and the entire
Northwest, you know, that's going to help everyone.
You touched on this earlier. You asked me a question
that I... didn't fully answer and you then touched
on part of it. It's not only the environmental
benefits that forest land provide, the water
quality, the wildlife habitat, the carbon sequestration.
It's also when we actively manage and utilize
our forests, we provide the jobs, we provide
the wood building materials, renewable building
materials. And if we don't grow them and harvest
them and provide them in the state of Washington,
Where do we get them from? We bring them in from
other countries. We bring in our wood products,
meet our building needs. We still have a societal
need. I do think that forest lands should be
recognized in the state of Washington. Counties,
the urban counties that don't have, they have
converted all of their forest land. Their county
has reaped the reward of the demand. the reward
in the form of tax base and the demand for lands,
yet they still rely on the rural counties providing
these ecosystem services or environmental values.
There should be some compensation to, because
it's the county lands, the county tax base is
taking, is restricted because we're keeping lands
in forest. We want to keep them in forest, but
that county has. has a lost opportunity. Yeah.
And there should be some value to from the urban
counties to the rural counties. It's almost like
they're being asked to make a sacrifice for the
benefit of everyone. Yes. Right. But the cost
of that sacrifice isn't really shared by everyone.
I mean, you could say that it is a little bit
because, you know, when you hurt the tax base
overall for the region. Others have to make up
the difference. You could say that by restricting
the market, it makes goods more expensive, right?
Because of just the basic laws of supply and
demand. But those are really kind of, they're
dependent on whether someone actually engages
in that marketplace, right? They're dependent
on whether or not, you know, well. People of
means versus people of less means are going to
have a different level of burden where a lot
of that is concerned. I mean, there's just many,
many factors to think about. I really like where
you're headed with this. And I want to talk about
just really briefly because I really want to
get to kind of this riparian discussion on the
riparian restoration roundtable, which both you
and I have been working on diligently really
for the last. Two years. Two to three years.
But, you know, you kind of mentioned, you know,
how good the region is environmentally for growing
and managing, you know, timber. Some people from,
you know, one perspective, and let's just say
it's more of an environmental perspective, will
say, well, because of that, we have a greater
responsibility. to protect those areas, right?
To make sure that we are being as sustainable
in our practices as possible. And there's always
room for improvement. And the benefits that we
get environmentally from that not only help us,
but help the globe, right? And the bigger problem,
if you agree that there's a bigger problem around,
you know, climate change long -term. that because
of regions like ours, we have a greater opportunity
to have a greater impact. And it's our responsibility
to do that. And we're very fortunate to live
in this environment, right? And we should share
that with others. The other side of that coin,
and you started to touch on it a little bit.
You didn't go there completely, but I knew where
you were going. If we don't grow it, who will?
Where do we get it from? And under what circumstances?
And, you know, one of the most interesting quotes
that I've ever heard was from Elaine O 'Neill,
someone that you know, someone that I know. She's
the executive director of the Washington Farm
Forestry Association, right? She's also a PhD
at UW. She said to me, we were having an interesting
conversation about carbon one day, and she said
to me, it's our responsibility. Not just to protect
the environment, but to grow and harvest trees
here in the Northwest because there's no better
place to do it. It's more efficient. It's better
quality. And we have some of the greatest protections
in the world in place already. What do you think
of the two sides of that coin? Well, you can
guess where I agree with Elaine completely. We
do not value... But you're biased, right? Because
you represent the landowners. Do you say that
just because you represent the landowners? Or
do you really believe that that's the stronger
side of that argument? Or is there more of a
balance somewhere? So I am a forest landowner
myself and an agricultural landowner myself.
And I know the standards that we have to adhere
to to operate in the state of Washington, particularly
on forest land under the Forest Practices Act.
I do believe it. I'm separating my representation
of the industry at WFPA from my core belief that
I'm passionate about this, that we have to manage
our forest land, no matter what the outcome is
that you want, if you want to grow. wildlife
habitat you have to actively manage to create
that otherwise you have mortality you have fire
you have disease right forest deteriorates and
then you have a mess and we see what we see that
happening today on the national forests here
in washington and throughout the northwest and
and we have in addition to environmental responsibility
the obligation to actively manage forests we
also have a societal duty a duty to the to the
state to the country to the globe to produce
the wood products that are renewable, that are
based in carbon. They're produced by carbon sequestration.
As a mutual friend we have, Mike Warjohn, has
said before, and I've quoted him a few times
on this, he said, So just for full disclosure,
Mike is the CEO of Port Blakely. Correct. Yeah.
Port Blakely Timber Company. Is it an economy
where we value materials that are grown on the
surface of the earth rather than mined out of
the earth? And, you know, trees that sequester,
whether it's trees, plants, the agriculture community
is not recognized for the contributions that
they provide in carbon sequestration. Forestry
community is not recognized. Sequestering carbon,
creating building products that society needs.
And if we look at this. comprehensively, we look
at it globally. If we're not producing it, where
is it coming from? Where do we get our wood from?
If we don't have mills that have capability,
this is why we're so intent on maintaining the
economic viability of our industry as a whole.
The pulp and paper sector is necessary. The biofuel
sector is necessary. The solid sawn wood and
plywood is necessary. Forest lands are necessary.
Because we have a duty and an obligation to society
to produce carbon -friendly building materials
that society demands. Anybody who says otherwise,
I'm sorry. But there's a lot of environmental
hypocrisy that goes on in the state of Washington.
Can we live without the products that the forest
industry provides, do you think? Not without
much higher carbon impacts. So you're talking
like steel, aluminum, plastics. Concrete. Concrete.
All the other type of building materials that
we use. Well, what about like natural stone?
It's still mined out of the surface of the earth.
It doesn't develop from sequestered carbon. Right.
And it's still a one -way. Now, I'm not. contrary
i'm not against the you do got to blow it up
to get it out yeah well exactly but i'm not there's
probably a little carbon released we we we need
we need stone we need aggregate we need concrete
we need steel yeah but you guys burn carbon when
you harvest I mean, you know, you're burning
diesel fuel in those engines. You're burning,
you know, regular gasoline or diesel fuel in
the tools that you use. Yep. Right. You're cutting
down trees that are now no longer alive. And
there's a lot of waste associated with that.
Right. Because you're leaving a lot of the branches
and the other things behind. And those are going
to decay quickly and release that carbon back
into the atmosphere. I mean, you're not a carbon
free. kind of business either however yes and
even after considering all of the emissions associated
with harvest and the mill conversion the mills
that are converting that those logs into lumber
building yeah usable lumber and even considering
the short -lived wood products the paper products
those those that decay fast so are you talking
about considering the whole life cycle from considering
the whole life cycle planting that seed all the
way to We still are a net carbon sink. Forestry
is a source or a sink of carbon, net carbon sink.
And we offset, I think the number was 11 % of
the calculations that have been done, 11 % of
the state's entire emissions are offset by forestry,
even after considering all of the emissions associated
with harvest and manufacture. Can any other manufacturer
say that? No. We're the only one. Are you sure?
Yes. That's an interesting statistic. Yes. Oh.
Okay. Now, forest nationally, the Forest Service
has FIA, Forest Inventory Assessment, part of
the National Forest System, FIA data and the
Forest Service has cautioned that. Forests nationally
are at risk of becoming a carbon emitter. That's
mainly because of wildfires on forest lands throughout
the United States, where forests have always
been a net carbon sink. If the trajectory and
frequency of wildfire continues, forests as a
whole will flip. Yeah, a big wildfire is a massive
and almost instantaneous release of carbon into
the atmosphere, right? Right. Almost, well, probably
not quite to the level of a volcanic explosion,
but certainly isn't a good thing. Not a good
thing. Yeah. Well, that's super interesting.
I assume that if anybody wanted to do some more
research, they could probably go to your website
and find the statistics on that that you're quoting.
Well, we've been all over the map. And I just
let the conversation kind of go where it went.
And it's just fascinating to me, again, how every
thread delves into another thread, delves into
another thread. And I think a lot of people,
when they think about forest land management,
they don't really make all the connections that
you and I just made in this conversation. And
when you think about it and when you have that
kind of conversation and you really start to
realize how... much of what we know of as our
life in the Northwest, in Washington State and
in the Northwest region is connected one way
or another to the landscape that we all live
and work in, including the forest. It's just
fascinating to dive into all the implications.
and all the different kind of policy areas that
you can talk about. One that we really haven't
talked much about that I want to talk about before
we get out of here today is riparian. And by
riparian, I mean the area that's near rivers
and streams primarily, but also wetlands, also
lakes, et cetera. These are all riparian environments,
and they're really critical from a whole different...
perspective. They're a really important ecosystem
to a lot of different species. They have a lot
of impact on water quality, water quantity, water
temperature, and the ability for fish to survive.
They're a big issue around salmon recovery, which
is a huge issue in Washington State and in the
Northwest region. And they're a big issue for
forestry. And lately, they've become an even
bigger issue statewide, as you and I have been
working on what's known as the statewide riparian
restoration. And this all started a couple of
years ago with an ill -fated bill that was introduced
by the Inslee administration that really never
got out of the gates. This was in, what, 2022
maybe, 2021, that would have required riparian
landowners, basically anybody who had... a riparian
area on their property would have required them
to do restoration. We've since kind of backed
away from that position a little bit. We've had
some ongoing discussions with tribes and with
ag folks and with cities and counties and conservation
interests and state agencies and others on kind
of what to do around riparian issues. And the
reason I think you have a unique voice here is
Forest landowners have been very engaged in this
for a very long time. And a ton of the forest
practices and a ton of the regulations associated
with those really focus on that forest riparian.
And we've been talking to our members for the
last several months about why that is and what's
important about the forest riparian environment.
I'm just curious what you think about these statewide
kind of talks and how the conversation has expanded,
whether you welcome that, whether you think there
are risks involved, just kind of what your take
is from a forest landowner point of view. Yeah,
I think we... welcome the conversation and welcome
other parties being part of the solution and
by other parties you know it's not going to work
if the the focus is just on the next downstream
land use agriculture as an example if the focus
is entirely on them it's not going to work because
there are downstream downstream of agriculture
there are other land uses there's urban residential
areas, there's industrial areas, there are municipal
discharges, treatment facilities, and such. When
you say, you said we welcome people being part
of the solution. What do you mean by that? Because
I think that not everybody understands what we're
talking about when I talk about riparian restoration
and when we talk about the solution, so to speak.
Can you just expand on that a little bit? Because
I think that's really key to the conversation.
Yeah, well, we in the forest land environment,
forest land owners are proud of... the accomplishments
that we've achieved through the forest and fish
law and HCP. As I mentioned earlier, the miles
of streams that had blockages, culvert blockages
or road crossings that prevented fish access
in waterways. And this is in forested areas,
right? This is in the forested environment. Where
with the programs that we've implemented, our
map and forest practices rules, We have opened
up streams. But if they're still blocked. So
you broke a rule that we have here on the podcast.
We're not allowed to use acronyms unless we say
what they are. So our map is? Oh, road maintenance
and abandonment plans. Okay. So that's a particular
program in the forested areas. And the reason
that's important, correct me if I'm wrong, is
in the past, you didn't necessarily care about,
you know. stream health necessarily or fish passage
you were concerned about making sure your roads
didn't wash out right and so you would place
occur you would place a culvert and i'm not indicting
anybody i'm just you know we didn't know what
the science was we didn't know what the impacts
were in the past but you would place a culvert
as cheaply as possible as small as you could
get away with right and you would position it
as easily as you could so that you could move
on to the next thing and make sure the road doesn't
wash out right but in many instances it was undersized
the flow wasn't right you would create you know
maybe during high runoff these hydraulic you
know blasts that would go through there um and
it would wash away areas that it would disconnect
say the the creek bottom uh with the culvert
bottom itself so you'd have a gap of you know
a foot or two or three and that's not good for
fish yeah it's i would i would say that we've
we learned as we we've learned as we've gone
along the way more about what fish require and
fish passages and we've all learned that and
and we have taken steps in the forestry land
base the forestry part of the watershed to remedy
those and we have a system in place for doing
it and a system for reviewing it and approving
and monitoring it and a pretty effective system
been a very effective system yeah but if if all
of our efforts so if we're contributing to solutions
in the forested environment but those efforts
are negated then the fish can't even make their
way back to realize the benefit of what we've
provided then there's a problem not not everybody
is contributing toward solutions so the solution
is getting the fish back into habitat that is
clean that's good quality some would even say
pristine in many instances where they can actually
spawn and those eggs can hatch those salmon fry
right can grow to juveniles and then they can
get out and then come back and perpetuate the
cycle and you're saying is Even if we have great,
beautiful habitat in the forest environment,
if there are other fish barriers or other conditions
downstream, whether it's pollution, whether it's
heat, whether it's blockages, et cetera, that
prevent them from accessing that, then what's
the point? Exactly. And what we want to have
is a healthy system from the saltwater all the
way up through. Right. the forested environment
to the headwaters. And we don't want fish to
have to run the gauntlet of death to get back
to the high quality habitat that exists upstream.
We want them to be healthy and productive and
not contaminated. And we have everything from
tire dust that runs off into streams or, or,
you know, discharges of pollutants and PFAS and
all, there's all kinds of examples. And now.
solutions as we talked about earlier why do people
focus on forestry so much and i i said because
it's much harder in the lower watershed to deal
with all of those issues and and provide high
quality habitat where you've already had degradation
history of degrading a century of degradation
in seattle for example uh how do you restore
that and we we can't We all have to do our part.
I mean, salmon recovery should be a shared responsibility
of everyone. And you can't just put the cost
on forest landowners or agricultural landowners
or residential landowners. But that's what we
have been doing. That is what we have been doing.
And it won't work. You think there's real possibility
through some of these discussions on the riparian
restoration roundtable that that could change?
I think it really depends on back to... very
early on in this conversation, my comment about
finding a win -win if, if the goal is to hammer
any sector of the economy and, and I'll just
focus on agriculture for the moment, but we,
you know, I could easily focus on residential
because we do need resident. We have housing
shortages. We have unaffordability of housing.
We need housing supply. So. I could argue about
the residential zone as well, that we have to
find ways to compromise. We can't just say no
impact at all. We have to allow for human impact,
but we have to do it responsibly and contribute
toward the solution. Maybe not completely solve
it all at once, but take incremental steps towards
solving and making things better. The focus of
the riparian roundtable that you've talked about,
talked about, has primarily been on agriculture.
And we need food supply. We have an absolute
need for sustainably grown food done responsibly.
We can't put our farmers out of business. We
can't render their farms inoperable or uneconomic
to operate. So we have to find an appropriate
balance there where they're... incentivized and
rewarded for being part of the solution and not
just simply burdened them in a way that causes
them to shut down and go out of business. Imagine
if we saw the increase. Well, let me, maybe I
should say this first. Do you agree that the
prices for timber products are much higher than
they used to be? Yes. Do you think that some
of the restrictive regulations around forest
practices have contributed to that by limiting
supply? Yes, to some degree. I think that's probably
the lesser of the impacts. I think growing demand,
increasing demand, population just keeps growing,
so there's more and more demand. We have shifted
the supply from a larger land base of forest
land. Federal lands, state lands, and private
land. We've shifted that demand to be supplied
primarily by private lands. Right. So private
lands have had to manage more intensively to
meet the demand, a growing demand. Lower supply,
higher demand. Yeah. Bigger prices, right? It's
a combination of multiple things that have increased
the... Imagine if we did the same thing to the
agricultural sector. Yeah. How do you think people
would react to much higher food prices as a result?
Yeah, not very well. I mean, we've seen just,
you know, with all of the federal tariffs and
the issues and agricultural products, food prices
going up and look at the... cry that we've had
yeah right well jason this has been fascinating
and i feel like we could talk all day um in fact
i haven't even really scratched the surface uh
of where we could go and i felt like we kept
it pretty high level today um we could go really
really deep on a lot of these issues and i know
you certainly could and you could teach me a
few things along with the rest of our listeners
i just really appreciate you coming by today
um i hope you had fun I did. Hopefully I didn't
ask you, well, I was going to ask you some embarrassing
questions, but we'll leave those to next time
because you'll come back, won't you? We'll see.
Of course I will. We'll see how this one turns
out. Yeah. No, I just say that, you know, you
touched on it earlier that forest landowners,
forest industry, agriculture, rural counties,
in particular rural counties, but it's all counties.
You know, we have a lot of common interests in
finding balance. I think public policy conversations
get controlled by those that don't seek the balance.
I have huge respect for counties and county commissioners
and county economic interests. As I told you
earlier, one of my mentors in my career said,
you know, the hardest job is being a county commissioner
because you're... you're right with the constituency
right at the ground floor. Yeah. There's no place
to hide when you're a County commissioner. There's
only three of you. And if you can't count to
two pretty often, you're in a lot of trouble.
Yeah. That's for sure. Huge respect and appreciation
for the alignment that we have had. All right.
Thanks. Thank you for having me, Paul. Take care.
Thanks for tuning in to County Connection. Stay
in the loop by subscribing to us through your
preferred podcasting app and following us on
LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. And don't
forget to join The Hub, your go -to source for
the latest news and updates from the Washington
State Association of Counties. Until next time,
stay connected and stay informed.