if you hug a tree the right way, does its vibrations
pick you? I don't know. Obviously the Lorax.
Yes. The Lorax, the world famous Lorax brought
to you by Dr. Seuss and friends. 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. Welcome
back, everybody, to the County Connection podcast,
the official podcast of the Washington State
Association of Counties. I'm Paul Jewell, your
host and government relations director for the
association. I'm joined today in the studio,
this fantastic, amazing studio here in downtown
Olympia at the WASAC office by Washington State's
own public lands commissioner. Dave Upthegrove.
Dave, thanks for joining us. It's about time
you got here. We've been trying to get you for
a while now. How are things? It's been a busy
year. I'm excited to finally get in here. Yeah,
you've been very busy. It has been a busy year.
And here we are. We're almost at the end of it.
It's already December, for goodness sakes. And
we're looking down the barrel of a brand new
legislative session in 2026. There's a lot happening
and a lot going on. What are you looking forward
to as you look towards 2026? Oh, personally,
I'm looking forward to taking care of my health,
my life -work balance. This job can eat at your
soul. Have you got a New Year's resolution already
picked out? No, but it's going to involve exercise
and nutrition probably. You and 70 % of the rest
of the population. I used to have a gym membership.
Now my wife and I have some gym equipment at
home that we go to. We kind of did that during
the pandemic like everybody else, right? When
you couldn't go to the gym. I used to hate January.
Oh, my gosh. I hated January. Usually right through
about the first week of February, it was just
packed in there. And then it was like someone
turned the switch off and everybody just went
away. But I hope it works out for you. Yes. And
it is. I think of it as work related because
it really does impact, you know, my energy levels,
my productivity when I'm getting sleep and dealing
with stress and eating well. moving, getting
a little bit of exercise, I find I get a lot
more done. Oh, and you feel better too. Yeah,
absolutely. And this is a job where there's more
demands on my time than I'm used to. I came out
of county government. I thought I was busy as
a county council member, but this has been a
whole different experience. Well, we're going
to talk about that. And in fact, I want to dive
into that right away. But I'll give you a tip.
And the tip that I'm going to give you is what
my doctor told me when I was a county commissioner.
He says, elected officials should never get their
blood pressure taken while they're in office.
It's just not allowed. It's my cholesterol I'm
worried about, actually. The truth is you probably
should have those things monitored a lot more
closely while you're in public office. Well,
Dave, I'm sorry, Commissioner Up the Grove, first
of all... Public lands commissioner is a statewide
elected position. It's partisan in Washington
State. And you are the head of the Department
of Natural Resources. I just want people to know
that for our listeners, if they're not familiar
with the position itself. But that's what you
do. You basically run the department that manages
the public lands that are owned by the citizens
of Washington State, right? Absolutely. And it's
a little bit of a strange construct. We're one
of only a handful of states that elects their
lands commissioner or elects the person who runs
the Department of Natural Resources. I think
it's part of that populist West Coast. Yeah,
we're kind of unique in that regard. You're a
former legislator. You mentioned that. But more
importantly, you gave up the greatest job in
the world to take this job, which, of course,
was a county council member. I don't know why
you would ever give that up. And I'm sure our
listeners are baffled. But why don't you tell
us, first of all, why you would give up the greatest
job in the world. And second of all, what interested
you enough in being the public lands commissioner
that you decided to run for office? County council
is a good gig, as they say. But I was in my third
term and I had already concluded that that was
enough. You know, there's time for a new generation
of leadership. King County is bogged down in
a morass of challenges with criminal justice,
behavioral health. All the things, all the things
that we talk about right here on this podcast.
And I felt like we were on a treadmill, putting
money into things and not getting anywhere. And
I thought, you know, it's time for, let someone
else come have a crack at this. And my life's
passion and what led me to public service in
the first place were environment and natural
resource issues. Starting as a... I spent all
my summers in high school and college working
at a Boy Scout summer camp and running their
ecology program out on the Hood Canal. And that
led to my academic studies in environmental science
and biology and later a graduate certificate
in energy policy. Yeah, you graduated with a
bachelor's degree in environmental science, right?
Yeah. What school did you go to? UC Boulder,
University of Colorado. Okay. I wasn't sure what
I wanted to do at the time. And so I wanted to
go to a big school, and I was 18 years old and
loved to ski at the time. Well, Boulder is beautiful.
It turned out to be a great experience. Yeah.
Really gorgeous campus, good science programs
there. I don't know if it was like that then,
but now, you know, they have a ton of really
good craft breweries down there as well. I wouldn't
know, of course. Well, none of us would, but
it's what I hear. I've heard it. A friend told
me. Yes, I was on the Coors Light five -year
plan. It took me an extra year to get out of
there. Well, at least you went with light. And
then when I ended up getting involved in public
service, I always gravitated towards those issues.
In the legislature, I... gravitated towards the
natural resource issues and served as chair of
the house environment committee. Same at King
County. Did you feel like you didn't have enough
of that at King County when you were working
as a council member, you didn't get to work on
enough of those issues. I loved what we got to
work on. I found this to a lot of people, this
is boring, but I took over the leadership of
the King County flood control district. And that's
where I found. I could satisfy my intellectual
curiosity and dive into these complex issues
with the Green River flew through the heart of
my district. And we had all very similar issues.
We had threatened Chinook salmon. We had Muckleshoot
tribal treaty rights. We had municipal governments
with regulatory authority, a flood district with
responsibilities to provide flood protection,
a county with an agenda of its own. A lot of
private properties along the river. Well, I think
a lot of people don't necessarily understand
when you're dealing with flood control solutions,
there's a lot of natural resource -based solutions
that you can employ. It's not all just dikes
and levees and stormwater drainage. There's a
lot of side channel reconnection and floodplain
reconnection. You know, habitat restoration and
other things like that that can actually go a
long ways towards reducing downstream and upstream
flood risk. If you have things and, you know,
if you can pinpoint kind of the right places
to do that kind of restoration type work. And
that was the challenge. And I moved us away from
rock walls into. you know, more setbacks. But
the two challenges we face in a more highly urbanized
area, such as the lower green, lower and middle
green, is most of that's private property. Yeah.
And more urbanized, right? Yep. And so if you
are going to do a setback, you're talking about
either using eminent domain, which I'm not a
fan of, or very expensive acquisition costs.
Yeah. And so the costs compared to a brick wall
would skyrocket. Often the cities resisted because
it didn't necessarily meet their plans. They
don't want to lose nine parking spots at REI
or whatever it might be, and you'd run into economic
conflict. So it was a good practice ground for
this job where there were lots of competing interests,
interesting overlapping governmental responsibilities.
And so I was kind of sad to leave that. Actually,
that was the piece I missed from the county.
Well, let's talk about the transition then from
going from the county. to this job. It's statewide,
so you had to run statewide. You're in charge
of a state agency, but it's a lot more than that,
right? You have the direct responsibility for
managing public lands. from so many different
perspectives. You know, there's the money -making
piece for the trust lands, right? There's the
recreation piece. There's the conservation and
environmental piece. There's the tidal piece,
right? The marine waters piece. There's the riverine
environment and the salmon protection and restoration
piece. But you guys actually handle the statewide
survey requirements and rules or something, don't
you? We house the Washington Geologic Survey.
Okay. name of the geology division i don't know
to what degree we draw those boundary lines or
not okay something that i haven't encountered
in my first year yeah it's well it's a little
it's something that's a little bit more obscure
uh compared to kind of the headline grabbing
things that dnr does that's for sure we do the
board of natural resources which i chair does
handle geographic names in fact our board meeting
today we named two different creeks miller creek
and hold on shadow something close wells Mills?
Mills. Mills, yes. Mills Creek, named after a
historic family. And then the other was named
after some geographic features. So there's a
committee that advises us on that made up of
Republicans. That was an interesting part of
the meeting. Let's talk about kind of in that
transition. What do you hope to achieve as public
lands commissioner, knowing that you've got a
ton of responsibility, you also have a ton of
resources that you oversee, and they're quite
varied. A lot of people don't understand that
the public lands commissioner also handles the
leases for... Tide lands for geoduck farms, right?
I mean, that's actually a fairly good -sized
part of the job. It's really varied out there.
You've got your hands in a lot of different places.
When you kind of looked at this job, what was
your vision for what you'd like to achieve as
public lands commissioner? I'm going to sound
like a politician a little bit. Well, you are
a politician. I really laid out three big picture
goals, and they evolve and change as I'm in the
office. One is, at the core of my values, is
doing more to protect clean air, clean water,
habitat, make sure we're living up to that responsibility
to be sustainable, manage these public lands
in the public interest. A second interest of
mine has been expanding the recreational opportunities
on our public lands so more people can get out
and enjoy the public lands. You're hunting, fishing,
backpacking, mountain biking, ORVing, target
shooting, you name it. Public lands belong to
we the people. And I want to make sure they're
accessible. And we do that in a way that obviously
is respectful of the ecology and of cultural
sites of tribes. And then the third is I want
to make sure we're doing everything we can to
strengthen and improve our wildfire prevention
and response efforts. That's a big part of the
agency is overseeing that. I took office at a
kind of a crappy time. Just as I was taking office.
Crappy is a technical term? Yes. I'm trying to
use Boy Scout language. That sounds great. It's
not too bad. But the state had been in a wash
in funds for a while. Yeah, that's true. It allowed
the department to do a lot of expanding and new
things. And right about the time I took office,
the state budget situation took a nosedive, huge
nosedive. So I like to point out my predecessor
had a slogan that was on the wall of her office
and it was. Do epic shit, if we can say that
word on this podcast. We can, yeah. Okay, good.
It's kind of like HBO, only not quite. It's like
HBO really, really light. Okay, good. That's
about as bad as I get. I think my tenure is going
to be marked somewhat by the opposite. I'm going
to be leading this agency and am leading this
agency through a time of fiscal constraint. So
some of these big ideas, big expansions of recreational
opportunities and facilities, increasing. what
we're doing for wildfire response and prevention
may not be achievable. And it's more about how
do we do better with what we have? How do we
maximize the resources we have? How do we maintain
and improve morale at an agency and help maintain
our core mission and support the people there?
I think it's looking and feeling like my time
is going to be very different than maybe I imagined
when I ran for it and had sort of some of these
broader... that take money to accomplish. So
it wouldn't be the first time that I've talked
to someone who got elected and said, well, I
wanted to do X, but I ended up having to do A,
B, C, and D instead because circumstances change.
And you're right. I mean, the last few years,
the last decade really, have seen really... Almost
unparalleled growth, revenue -wise for the state.
Good times all around. And a whole... bunch,
a whole slew of new revenue sources that they've
been able to deploy in many different areas,
right? Whether it's CCA dollars or cannabis revenue
or, you know, you name it. There's a bunch of
new money out there that a decade ago they didn't
have that they have today. And we saw a lot of
growth in a lot of places and DNR was one of
them. And there were some really important areas
that DNR grew in and I want to talk about some
of those today. Last year was a real wake -up
call, I think, for many legislators who've been
in office for a decade, but not more than a decade,
because they hadn't seen tough financial times.
They weren't here during the Great Recession.
I think all of us thought it was going to really
change during COVID, but that didn't happen because
there was a lot of federal money that came in
and bailed everybody out. created even greater
expectations and higher levels of revenue than
we would have seen had it not been for the pandemic
and those federal dollars. You mentioned sustainability,
recreation, wildfire. I haven't heard you talk
about recreation much before. That's kind of
a new one for me. But I can appreciate that maybe
I just missed it. But you've talked a lot about
sustainability. You've talked a lot about climate
change. You've talked a lot about how public
lands can kind of fit into that whole, you know,
climate battle sort of thing. And of course,
wildfire, if you're, if you're not talking about
wildfire as commissioner of public lands, you're
really missing the boat, right? I think we can
both agree on that because it's a big issue for
both Eastern Washington and Western Washington.
And I'm hoping we'll talk about that a little
bit more today too, but my members are also thinking
a little bit differently than just those items.
And I will tell you that. Let me clear. Those
aren't. The only thing. Yeah, and I can appreciate
that. That's what I want to talk about. That's
very much what I say. They sound like a politician.
Those are kind of three value -based. And counties,
and that's who you're talking to here, right?
Counties are very interested in all those issues.
We want clean water, clean air. you know protected
watersheds we want recreation it's good for our
economy it's good for quality of life for our
folks right it's a big part of you know many
of our county's residents lifestyles is access
to those public lands and you know the work that
they do on those public lands or the recreation
they do on those public lands and obviously wildfire
really affects our communities and we're very
in tune to that and have been for several years
But the other piece for us, you know, the public
lands are really important with regard to is
our economies. You know, there's I have a saying
that sounds a little sarcastic, I'll admit. But,
you know, the state of Washington is more than
what you can see from the top of the space needle.
And I say that because it feels like sometimes
with a lot of legislators, they don't realize
that. They think that the majority of Washington
is this urban environment that's part of the
greater Puget Sound region. But the truth is
the majority of Washington is not that. It's
quite rural. And when you talk about a lot of
the lands that you manage, there are real implications
associated with that financially for many, many
communities. And a lot of our counties look at
that just as hard. as they look at these other
things that you mentioned. I'm curious to know
how you're planning to balance those priorities
that you mentioned, those top three, which you've
already said aren't the only ones. But with that
other piece, that's really, really important
to rural communities. And frankly, you have a
legal responsibility towards as well, right?
Which you're well aware of. Can you talk about
that a little bit? Absolutely. I think that is
a tension that's inherent in this job and every
commissioner. And the way I think that's right,
sort of describe it is, and people have different
interpretations of some court decisions, but
balancing a fiduciary interest to the trust with
balancing the public interest, and often those
are aligned. Are you an attorney? No. I am not
an attorney either, and that makes us perfectly
suited to discuss these issues, to argue over
the legal implications of Supreme Court decisions.
I wasn't sure this was going to happen, but now
I'm super excited. Yeah, and I'm not ready to
dive into that. It's more of a philosophical.
It's a tension between generating revenue, which
sometimes, not always, but sometimes conflicts
with generating another public benefit. Maybe
you don't want to cut down these trees because
you want to put a park or a trail there. Balancing
that, and we have a lot of clear guidance. Our
state constitution requires us to manage certain
of these lands that were given to us by the federal
government in fiduciary trust. for the beneficiaries.
Right. Now, just for the listeners at home who
may not be familiar with that, what you're referring
to is the lands that were granted at statehood
to Washington by the federal government. And
those lands were granted in the form of a trust.
And the majority of those lands were provided
for the public schools trust. Now, there are
other trusts as well, like Capitol Campus, prisons,
our state. State Forest Board lands, obviously.
Right. Well, that's not, but those aren't constitutional.
Those were a separate issue. But I'm thinking
of the ones that were the federal grants, so
our research universities, for instance. But
the vast majority of it is for the state schools,
right? Yep. And so we are constitutionally constrained
in our management of those. We also have state
laws that guide our work, both on those trusts
and on other lands we manage. And then my work
is also done under the framework of policies
adopted by the Board of Natural Resources. So
there's three layers there, constitutional responsibilities,
statutory responsibilities, policies adopted
by the board. You add to that, we have federal
agreements. that we're required to comply with
with the federal government in order to comply
with federal laws like Endangered Species Act.
And it creates a patchwork of responsibilities
that in some ways constrain this position and
guide how decisions are to be made. And in some
ways, I'm testing some of those and introducing
some new ideas for discussion. So you've been
on the job almost a year now. Yep. So you're
an expert in every single one of those, right?
Every layer, every constraint, every agreement
that you have out there. I'm feeling a lot of
the constraints, I'll tell you that. I'll bet
you are. I'll bet you are. It is cold and flu
season, that's for sure. So sorry to the listeners
if you hear a cough every now and again. So we
talked about the trust lands. So you've got the
federal trust lands. You mentioned there's also
the state forest board lands, which are also
known as the state forest transfer lands, which
are also known as the county lands, essentially.
Which make it all really complicated because
calling the county lands the state forest board
lands. Right. And, of course, you don't want
to call them state forest board anymore because
there is no state forest board, but that's what
they were called back in the day. Now I think
the official name is State Forest Transfer, right?
And then there's the State Forest Purchase, which
is two different categories of lands that benefit
counties. Now those were granted to DNR through
an agreement between the counties and the state
that actually manifested itself as state law,
statutory. Those were not under the Constitution.
So they're kind of in another bucket by themselves,
right? Correct. There conceivably could be more
flexibility. if there was interest in the state
in making changes to the management of those,
it would be easier to the extent the legislature
is easy than constitutional amendments. It would
involve statutory amendments if there were ideas
to manage them in different ways. Yeah, you don't,
in other words, what you're saying is if you
wanted to manage it. different than, say, you're
managing the other trusts, it would be easier
to make some changes because you just have to
get the legislature to agree and pass a bill
versus a constitutional amendment that would
have to affect the other ones. And neither one
of us are lawyers, but we both agree on that
point, actually. We've done some research here
at WASAC, and we think that's the case as well.
And just for members that are out there that
are listening. And I'm not proposing anything
just right now. No, no, no. We're not going to
talk about proposals today. But for members that
are listening out there right now, the state
forest lands that we're talking about that are
the statutory ones are the ones that counties
actually get the most money from. We actually
get 75 % of any revenue that's derived from those
lands, mostly through commercial timber harvest.
That money goes straight to the county, but then
it gets shared with, in most cases, junior taxing
districts like the schools and the fire districts
and the library districts and the hospitals,
et cetera, just like any other property tax.
And you get tax revenue, too. And we get tax
revenue. So counties benefit a lot from these
lands. With the state forest transfer lands,
the state forest board lands, the ones I was
just mentioning, we get 75 % of the revenue derived.
We also get 4 % of the 5%. timber excise tax
on those lands. But we get that on all lands
that are harvested in Washington state, whether
it's federal lands, state lands, or private timber
lands, whether there are state forest lands or
someone else's, meaning a different trust, right?
And then, of course, there's the economic benefits
associated with working lands in the community.
So when people go to work, they buy gas, they
buy supplies, they buy tools, they need their
stuff repaired. If a mill locates, you know,
in a community that's bringing in timber or other
products, they hire people. Those people, you
know, need houses. Those people need clothes.
Those people need supplies. They need to live.
They need schools, et cetera. This is what drives
communities. And so not only is it the individual
dollars that counties receive, but it's the induced,
well, the direct, indirect, and induced economic
impacts, which can actually be about 10 to 1.
or more in some communities. So the real value
is not just the direct dollars. It's the actual
working lands. It's the actual occupations that
are happening on these properties for many of
our communities. And that's where some of this
rub comes together, right? Absolutely. So how
do you balance all that? I mean, what is your
vision for balancing that? It's been something
that every single public lands commissioner has
struggled with. At varying degrees, right? It's
not easy. I start with a premise that our world
is changing. We're seeing the impacts of climate
change all around us. We're seeing a rapid loss
in biodiversity. And our management of our public
lands needs to keep up with today. And DNR, Washington
State Department of Natural Resources, I think
has always led the way in our sustainable management.
The lands under our management have been very
sustainably. and using some of the best forest
practices for environmental protection probably
in the world. Yeah, you guys exceed state law
in your forest practices. When you harvest, you
go above and beyond what your own agency needs
to enforce on private lands. Yep, and you add
to it our habitat plans with the federal government,
add additional prescriptions there. And I want
us to continue to be leading the way. And I envision
a strong, healthy... forest products industry
in the state for generations to come. I think
we'll always have healthy forest practices on
our state lands. But I am interested in innovating
and diversifying how we manage a small subset
of some of our structurally complex older forests.
And I think we can do this thoughtfully with
input. And it isn't something that we alone can
do. So let's unpack that for a minute because
you just – you said a term or you said a series
of words that I think is interesting. You called
them structurally complex – excuse me, structurally
complex older forests. Now, that's not a thing,
right? Those are two things. Yeah, but from a
regulatory standpoint, in Washington State, in
forest practices, it's not a thing, right? You
have – We have plantation forests. We have forest
practices rules. The one thing that we do have
for a term, right, is old growth. And we have
goals for old growth. In law, at the agency and
our policies, we have structurally complex and
we have older. Okay, so that's a really interesting
point that I wanted you to hit on. Let's kind
of talk about what the difference is. Sure. Because
we have goals. I think everybody knows you can't
touch old. old growth anymore. Yeah. Right? I
mean, during the 70s and 80s, right, whether
it was our forests or federal lands, I mean,
that's what the timber wars were about was old
growth and the cutting of old growth. And in
some places in the world, they're still doing
that. They're still cutting old growth north
of us on the other side of the border, if I'm
not mistaken. Right? But in Washington State,
we don't cut old growth. Absolutely not. And
it's been that way for a while. And in fact,
you have a goal. as an agency, to create more
old growth over time. But lately, we've been
hearing a lot about this structurally complex
older forests. What is it? Why is it important?
When foresters go out and survey a forest, they
categorize it as to where is that forest along
its stage of stand development. As forests age,
they don't all do it in the same way, but the
nature of the forest changes. You get, you know,
the understructure changes, the mix of, you know,
the mix of species changes. And foresters, we
use a guide called Van Pelt's Guide. And the
foresters... Named after an actual person. Yes.
And forests are characterized at what stage of
stand development they're in. I'm interested
in... Making sure that at any moment in time,
we're maintaining a mix of ages across the landscape.
Why is that important? Because I think part of
the definition of sustainability means sustaining
the biodiversity. And sustaining the biodiversity
means maintaining a diversity of stand types
and structures. And I think if we're going to
be economically sustainable, everyone knows we
need to be ecologically sustainable. And for
me, part of that is sustaining the diversity
of stand structures. and types and it's been
uh people debate whether it's called a goal it's
been a desired outcome of our habitat plans with
the federal government has been to get to achieve
that through the lands that to achieve more of
it yeah to try to get to about 10 to 15 percent
is what was envisioned at the The conclusion
of the habitat plan. And when you say 10 % to
15%, 10 % to 15 % of what are total holdings?
Of each planning, this is where it gets more
complicated, each planning unit. Okay. As we
do it, sometimes science is an art. Science is
an art, not a science. Yeah. You can draw these
geographic lines sort of arbitrarily at times,
but our habitat plan. for the spotted owl envisioned
that we would get there. I want to get us there
sooner. I view it as a conservation strategy,
not a preservation strategy. It's kind of about
when do you cash in, for lack of a better term.
I'm not looking at reducing our trust holdings,
but I'm interested in helping us get to these
stand structure outcomes faster. Why do you think
that's important? I think... Part of how you
sustain the complete biodiversity of a system
is by sustaining the nature of the habitat itself
and not just having younger forests or just having
old growth forests. I think it's important to
have a mix of those. Almost every scientific
look at systems values diversity in it. A healthy
ecosystem is diverse. watershed has a diversity
right to it and i think we have um not only healthier
um landscapes that can sustain and protect more
biodiversity but i also think it's a way to ensure
that economic stability you know the um not cutting
those as heavy At this point, I always envisioned
like, you know, you get to your 15 percent goal,
you get to 16 percent, you're harvesting one
percent. You're getting us to a stage where we're
maintaining stand structure diversity across
the landscape. So you've referred to the habitat
plans a couple of times. I just want to make
it clear that what you're talking about is what
a lot of us call the HCP. We're not allowed to.
use acronyms on this show without explaining
what they are. So the HCP is the Habitat Conservation
Plan, and they're in place for state forest lands,
meaning the state trust lands, essentially, to
protect different species, primarily the spotted
owl, salmon, and then we have one in place for
the marbled murrelet that was adopted in 2019
as an addendum. Basically, it allows us to impact
those species. as long as we're following this
plan it's sort of in lieu of right saying okay
you individual surveys every time we want to
go do a timber sale to see if the species are
on the landscape and then individual protection
measures we have the we have a broader landscape
scale type of plan right as long as we do this
we're considered in compliance exactly but as
part of that because you talk about you know
wanting ecological diversity you talk about wanting
variable age stands on the landscape, et cetera.
As part of that, your own statistics. Now, I
said I wasn't going to talk a lot about statistics,
but this one I think you'll be familiar with.
There's no gotcha here. But your own reports,
your own statistics say at least 40 % of the
land mass and acreage under the HCP is set aside
from harvest. Can't be touched. On that 40 %
of acreage lies 55 % of the timber total so 40
of the land and over half of the timber already
can't be harvested right now when the hcp is
up it could right which is until what 20 70 years
which in harvest time isn't that it's another
50 years to go or something like that right but
when we're talking trees that's not that yeah
but thankfully you and i won't be talking about
this then yes um But what my members will ask,
and some of them ask, and I have members on all
sides of this issue, right? And that's why I
say counties are in this unique position to really
be interested in all of these things. But what
some of my folks will ask is, okay, we've already
set aside 40 % of the acreage, 55 % of the trees.
How much is enough and when is enough enough
under these sorts of scenarios? When we're talking
about multi -age stands, when we're talking about...
conservation, when we're talking about habitat,
when we're talking about diversity ecologically,
how much more do we need? I would flip it. That's
driving it as saying the motive is financial.
I think to be financially sustainable, the first
thing is, are we doing what's necessary to protect
the climate and habitat? And I think we do a
good job. I think we can do more to meet that
goal. I also... don't think of this as I reject
the term set aside it's about this is all about
timing of of harvest and it's about you know
we need to think multiple generations here we
want to make sure this trust is delivering for
generations to come and if we're choosing not
to harvest something today it means it's available
to harvest tomorrow and I think That also we're
talking about a pretty small proportion relative
to all of the forestry in the state and that
there ought to be ways to meet those dual objectives
of doing more habitat and climate and meeting
these financial obligations. Okay. Can I press
you on that a little bit more? Because that was
a little roundabout. Yeah. Well, I mean, the
idea, it's easy to say. I reject the premise,
you know, and I don't want to come at it from
that direction. But then you came right back
and you said, well, it's just a little bit more,
right? And we started out with a little bit.
And pretty soon, you know, under the HCP, we
were at 40%, right? 55 % of the timber. And now
it's just a little bit more and it's just a little
bit more and it's just a little bit more. You
know, it feels, for some of my members who really
come at it from an economic point of view, for
them that feels like a death by a thousand cuts.
On the other side, you know, the folks, the members
that I have that come at it from an environmental
point of view, they see it as just a little bit
more. Again, it comes back to this balance question,
right? I mean, how do we know? I don't want to
sound snarky, but how much money is enough? Oh,
that's a good question. Find a government who
will ever tell you that they've got enough. Yeah,
and it's how much it is always going to be a
balance. And I just think... Shouldn't there
be a goal or something, though, out there, a
line that says, here's when we've achieved it?
I don't know that you can ever, in a democratic
society with elected bodies, and you may have
someone, you have different legislatures, different
elected commissioners, different board members.
living in different times with different things
happening around us in the world i don't think
you can ever avoid continual adaptive management
in this space i just think it will always be
there and um and so we do have plans we have
sustainable harvest targets that i'm committed
to doing my best to meet and We develop those
harvest targets through robust public processes,
and we're updating those now. Yeah, you're starting
with the eastern Washington one, right? Yeah,
and if we had a what's the goal, what's the plan,
it's those documents. It's the sustainable harvest
calculation, and the policies inform that. So
it is really a reflection of the adopted policies.
and a lot of constraints again that we take the
state laws we take these federal commitments
and plans and everything and the and the adopted
policies of the board and and those that the
board wants to adopt and puts it in there so
that really is what establishes but those are
decadal they're 10 years if we're doing them
on time and the agency's behind on that right
we do it do you think that's long enough or do
you think we should be thinking longer term than
that now I think we have to be thinking longer
term. It's challenging in, I think, in government,
given, like I said, sort of the dynamic nature
of it. We have sort of operational, I kind of
think of it as three levels, and we as an agency
plan this. There's operational, that's short
term. What sales are coming to the board this
year? How are we staffing it? What areas are
specifically targeted? Then there's the tactical.
I think we're okay on that. And that's our, we
have a five -year tactical plan that says, okay,
here's the timber sales we're envisioning over
the next five years in order to hit our sustainable
harvest calculation targets. And then there's
that longer -term strategic look. And I think
the sustainable harvest calculation gets at some
of that. But I think... I think we always need
to be thinking long -term ahead. I don't know
how it gets embodied in a document or a plan
as formally, but I think anyone who's in a decision
-making position, whether you're a commissioner,
a board member, a legislator, should be weighing
the long -term consequences of their actions.
I feel like the sustainable harvest calculation
is something that we're going to be watching
really closely over the next several years. And
most of our members certainly haven't been through
one because it's been a while, as you mentioned,
since one's been done. So I don't want to go
into that a lot. It's luring me in, though. No,
and I'd love to comment on it, too. I think it
is important. Yeah, it's definitely important.
But I want to pivot a little bit because we only
have so much time here. And we've really kind
of gone down this road a little bit of some of
your greater vision around sustainability and
diversity and environmentalism. And I've pushed
back on you a little bit around some of the economics.
But let's switch gears a little because something
that I really want to talk about is wildfire.
and, you know, wildfire preparedness, wildfire
management, et cetera. And one of the things
that, one of the arguments that you make that,
in my opinion, is really germane to wildfire
is the diversity in the landscape, right, and
the health of the forest ecosystem as a whole.
You know, the plantation -type forest that is
that old, you know, Prussian model of forest
management, which I think that's actually where
it comes from. I think, that creates, you know,
this really efficient commercial forestry, almost
crop, right? Single, you know, species. Monoculture.
Yeah, monoculture, same, you know, all the same
age stand, et cetera, et cetera. Great for maybe
growing lumber, not so great for building a forest,
right? And we know the forest. in its most natural
state with multi -aged trees, mixed species,
right? Open canopies, trunks that are larger
and separated, right? Not overstocked and more
resilient for fire, right? That actually need
fire on the landscape, you know, to help sustain
that sort of environment long -term. That is
really what makes us a resilient landscape. for
wildfire. And we've changed that, right? We've
radically, right? We've decimated it in many
cases. And I know that your agency is focused
on trying to make that better while also trying
to create this sustainable, sustainably managed
forest for harvest, which has to be a real challenge.
But I think that some of the things that you
described, a lot of people don't really understand
that that is actually really key to longer term.
wild land fire protection and management on the
landscape itself. Can you talk about that a little
bit and what your agency is doing? And I would
love for you to talk about your efforts versus
what you're seeing happen or not happen on neighboring
federal lands. I think we recognize the importance
of managing our state lands. And by managing,
it means... Going in and addressing the issues
that contribute to wildfire and degrade the ecological
value. It's very different based on what ecosystem
you're in. Eastern Washington forests are different
than some of the Western Washington more rainforest
type evergreen forests. Very different, right?
And so the management looks different. It is
striking in Eastern Washington to look at what
a forest looked like a couple hundred years ago.
what a healthy forest is, and to look at the
forest now, a healthy forest in these eastern
Washington ecosystems has a lot of room between
the trees, and a lot of it, it's almost like
a grassy meadow with trees in it, and it was
very good for wildlife. And fires would come
through regularly, and they wouldn't burn down
all the trees because the brush was low. Now,
you're talking about the eastern Washington.
Yeah, this is eastern. Yeah, so mostly like ponderosa
pine. Yeah, heavy on ponderosa pine. And they
have that really thick bark, right? Yep. Native
Americans would do intentional burning. We didn't
have firefighters going out and stopping fire.
So the fires would happen quite a bit, but it
wasn't that big of a deal because these trees
were resistant. The underbrush would burn and
it kept that ecosystem healthy. We put Native
Americans on reservations. Their burning stopped.
We started suppressing fire. And now you look
at many of those forests and they are dense.
Well, we created those monocultures that you're
talking about. Yep, and some of the replanting
and their old ways of doing things. And now they're
like a tinderbox. When they do catch fire, everything
burns up. The entire trees, it can ravage communities
and homes. And it's not good for wildlife. It's
not the natural ecosystem. So what we're doing...
is investing in forest health and we are thinning
those forests. Sometimes you can get good wood
products and we're doing prescribed burns where
we put fuel on there, put fire on there on purpose.
Why are we seeing the trees die? Why are we seeing,
it's not just fire that's killing the forest.
We're also seeing trees die, entire stands of
trees die, large scale in some areas, which actually
creates an even greater hazard for... for potential
for fire, right? Why is that happening? It's
probably site -specific, so I hesitate, but generally
we are seeing some of our shifting climate conditions
resulting in an increase in disease in some parts
of the state. And I also imagine if you're not
managing those forests, you're creating an ecosystem
situation where you have... more competition
for water and light than that traditional natural
system has, you're going to see the natural die
off. Because the trees are weaker? Yeah, you
see competition. Yeah, they can't necessarily
protect themselves as well. And some of that's
natural. That cycle of a forest developing includes
trees being... dying naturally from competition
and contributing to that. So you kind of described
what, you know, historically was the case in
eastern Washington. And if you look at a lot
of the forests in eastern Washington now, what
you described is not what we see. No. We're making
progress on our state lands a little bit. And
you actually can go into some areas, and I live
in an area where you've made a lot of progress,
and it's actually pretty remarkable to stand.
on the line between a treated stand and a non
-treated stand, it's stark, the difference. I
mean, it really is stark. I was stunned. Yeah,
maybe that's a better word. It's almost stunning.
And I don't mean like stunning gorgeous. It's
just the difference is really, really apparent
just from standing there and seeing it. But what
about Western Washington? Because we're starting
to see more wildfire here as well. You had a
big fire this year in the Olympics range. I can't
remember the name of it all of a sudden. Bear
Gulch. Yeah, burned for, what, months. Might
still be some hot spots out there even now, except
the snow and rain has been flying pretty good.
Why are we seeing, what's the difference there?
Was it a similar type of situation in western
Washington or not? And what's kind of causing
the increased danger and risk on this side of
the mountain? I think it's more complicated on
the west side. I think we do have situations,
we see some in southwest Washington where you
have disease and you do see some overcrowding
conditions where management takes place. I've
also seen some science that on some of these
older forests, certainly the old growth, some
of these western Washington evergreen forests,
the older well -developed forests are more protective.
And the science has shown it sometimes is because
of bark thickness, retention of moisture, things
like that, where harvesting and replacing with
younger stands, even if you're not doing monoculture.
can increase fire risk so i think it really is
site specific and i think in the ideal world
we'd have the resources to go in and manage every
parcel we own based on the conditions in in those
those sites and People throw the term manage
around too. Sometimes people say we're managing
them and managing may mean clear cutting. And
I don't necessarily mean it in that term, but
it's different forest treatments that can be
done. The challenge is when you're not pulling
out all the trees, it often costs money to do
it instead of makes money. Yeah. So if you're,
that's a, that's a really good point, right?
So. One of the things that I was going to ask
you about that I didn't get a chance to and we
just moved on from was this idea that, okay,
this existing 40 % that's set aside, what are
we doing to improve the habitat there? We're
doing some cool stuff. But it does cost money,
right? A lot of money. And it doesn't pay for
itself. And if you're doing forest treatments,
you're talking about things like ladder fuels
removal, underbrush removal. You're talking about
sending in chippers. You're talking about thinning,
right? And probably in most cases, that doesn't
pay for itself either, right? Sometimes the thinning,
it's really proximity to a road and proximity
to a mill. So it's close and easy. If it's close
and easy, you can make money off of the thinnings.
Jim, that's grossly oversimplified, but the rule
of thumb is that some of the thinnings can make
a little bit of money. Most cost money, some
are a wash. Because like you said, we got some
money from the legislature to go into that owl
habitat and try to improve it and speed up that
stand stage. So you have to rely on the legislature
to appropriate funds to actually do that? Much
of that. Most. Not all of it, but most of it.
We have some tools we can use financially, but
they're limited. Okay. Okay. I want to get into
that especially, but before we do that, I want
to touch on the Forest Service, and I want to
touch on the relationship with the Forest Service.
Your predecessor, who you mentioned before, I
know was working hard on this. I didn't follow
it very closely, so I'm not sure what progress
was made, but I know we have good neighbor agreements
and things like that. What I'm worried about,
I know a lot of our members are worried about,
is the Forest Service takes a much more hands
-off approach than DNR does from a management
point of view. They've nearly stopped harvesting
in Washington state. Now, the Trump administration,
the current administration, is talking about
increasing that. And I think some of my members
welcome that. Some of my members are very worried
about that. Regardless, there's a lot of fire
hazard on unmanaged properties that were previously
managed. as plantation stands for commercial
timber harvest that we're essentially just walked
away from right they're overstocked there's a
lot of disease it's more of a monoculture uh
you just don't it's just not properly managed
from from not just uh the point of view of trying
to maximize harvest potential but from a fire
resilience and those lands oftentimes are bordering
your lands or are intermixed. And, you know,
fire doesn't just stop at a border because it
started on, well, this is federal land and we're
just going to burn federal land, right? That
doesn't happen. So how are you managing that
and how do you mitigate the risk from that? You
know how you said it was stark, the difference
between a treated and untreated forest? Yes.
It's stark, the difference between a U .S. Forest
Service forest and a state forest. Totally agree.
You can stand. on the side of the road and look
up on hillsides, and now I can, to my eyes, say,
all right, Forest Service, state, private. 100%.
And I share that concern, and I'm a big fan of
this tool the federal government gave us, the
Good Neighbor Authority, where this is oversimplified,
but they pay us to do work on their lands. Are
you having success getting that funding from
them? Yes. We're in negotiations now, our state
forester, to continue it, but the conversations
with the new regional forester are very positive.
We've treated about 25 ,000 acres in recent years
on federal lands, and I want to do more of it.
That sounds like a big number. It is and it isn't.
Yeah, let's put it in perspective, right? Because
you own, well, the state owns and manages, what,
1 .3 million acres? Is that about right, something
like that, of forest land? More than that. Is
it more than that? Yeah. Okay. So it's more than
that. 25 ,000 is a tiny portion of that. And
the Forest Service is a much bigger landowner
than you are in Washington State, right? Do you
have any idea how many acres they own? No, I
have no clue. I don't either. The federal government.
But I want to do more of it. It's also... But
we're talking a tiny fraction still. Yes. And
I don't believe we're the limiting factor. I've
asked our state forester to work with them on...
you know, getting more of these agreements in
place. It also is a good workforce stability
thing. If we have downturn ups and downs in our
workforce, it's a great way to keep people working.
Sure. And as you noted. You know, these to most
people, these political boundaries are arbitrary
when it comes to an ecosystem. They're just arbitrary.
There's the where the border of a federal versus
state lands are. Right. And if we want to keep
ourselves safe from wildfire and forest diseases,
you have to address what happens on the neighbor's
property. Right. Absolutely do. And I don't think
we you know, I understand why some people are
nervous. I don't I certainly don't want to clear
cut our national forest. pay for tax cuts or
something like that. But there's a lot more work
that can be done on these federal forests and
done in a way that's aligned with Washington
State's history and values. Seems overwhelming
at times as far as the wildfire risk problem
that we're dealing with. And it feels like no
matter how much money we're putting into it right
now, it's actually getting worse in some areas.
We can't keep up with it. Does that make sense?
Yes, I have. Last few years have been, you know,
we've been keeping statistically in Washington
in the short term recently. It hasn't been, we
haven't seen a spike or anything like that. It's
a combination of both the prevention and the
response really determined the outcome. This
stuff works. If I can share one quick story,
there was a big fire down at the gorge this year,
the Berdoin fire. Fire at the gorge? That's so
rare. Down outside, white salmon. And the legislature
had funded us for this work. You hear people,
if you've got county council members listening,
they call it the House Bill 1168 funding. Yeah,
I want to talk about that. This is a good transition
because I want to go right into it. It was money
the legislature gave us for prevention, preparation,
and response. Purchasing the equipment, things
like that. And the idea is... Fighting wildfires
is really, really expensive. So when we go and
put out a fire, we do what it takes to put it
out. We're like an emergency room. You show up
at the emergency room, you get treated, whether
you can pay or not. There's a fire, we go put
it out, and we send the legislature the bill.
And by law, they're required to pay it. Those
are big bills they get. Every year right at the
beginning of the session, that's one of the first
things they talk about. And they wisely, when
times were good, said, why don't we get upstream?
prevent one or two of these big fires or reduce
the size will more than pay for it. So they put
in a bill that they passed a piece of legislation
that said over the next four biennium, over the
next eight years, we're going to provide $500
million to DNR. That's $125 million every two
years for this wildfire prevention work and the
forest health and purchasing equipment for response.
And for the first four years, they did that.
But last year when they met, instead of providing
us... would have been 120 million. They only
gave us 60 million. They cut it in half. 40 million
this year, 20 million next year. And if they
don't restore that funding in the upcoming legislative
session, we're going to see more fires, we're
going to see bigger fires, and that bill we send
to the legislature is going to be bigger, and
it'll probably cost more in the long run. So
you're getting into the next kind of area that
I wanted to talk about really quickly. But before
we get that... You said that before they kind
of recognized the old saying, an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure, right? And that has
to be the case in things like that or things
like this. And they poured a bunch of money into
it, which was great. But last year they cut it.
If they keep it at the reduced funding level,
are we going to go backwards? Yes, absolutely.
It can potentially mean the loss of about 50
firefighters. maybe an additional 20 staff that
do this forest health work. Almost all of the
pass -through money we give to local governments
and fire districts and local partners all goes
away. And we'll have some funding to do some
of this work, but it means we will thin fewer
forests. We'll do less prescribed burns. We will
purchase less equipment for initial attack. It
obviously would have, logic would tell you, will
have a significant impact. You know, it is both
that prevention side, but half of this money
goes for what I call the preparation. That's
the money we use to buy helicopters and equipment.
And I've learned in this job in the first year
that that initial attack is everything getting
to the fire when it starts. Really quickly. Right
away and getting it out. Yeah. This is the funding
that helps us do that. Before it gets out of
control. And so it really, and I get the. I was
in the legislature. You were in the county. We
always hear people come and say, well, you know,
if you invest in early childhood education, you're
going to reduce prison costs down the road. But
you have to get out to get out of Olympia. You
have to balance your budget that year. Right.
This I don't think is one of those. I think this.
It can be hard to think 20 or 30 years down the
road. But this is thinking two, three, four years
down the road potentially. Potentially, yeah,
no, I agree. Well, let's talk about this because
this is something that I wanted to address today.
I wanted to give you a chance to kind of talk
about, you know, what you're looking forward
to in the session. 1168 is the bill that you
mentioned. It was passed in, what, 22, 23, I
think, or 21. Was it 21? We were definitely part
of that. I know our members probably. Some of
our members that have been around, I'm sure,
remember it. And you're right, it's $125 million
per year. So $250 million per biennium. No, no,
$125 a biennium. Oh, $125 a biennium. So $250
per every four years? Yeah. Okay, okay. So we
had been getting about $5 million goes to some
other programs, so we're getting about $60 million
a year historically. And it was hiring full -time
firefighters that you didn't have. It was putting
new apparatus on the ground and in the air. It
was... paying for training for local communities
and equipment grants for local communities. So
think your local fire district, right? Getting
them the brush trucks that they need to assist
in wildland fire, not just structure fire, right?
Training their people on how to dig trail and
how to do backburns and providing money for local
community groups as well as your agency to go
in and do that forced health treatment, which
includes prescribed burning, which includes...
shaded fuel breaks around communities, which
includes fire lines, which includes ladder fuel
removal, which includes pre -commercial thinning
and commercial thinning, et cetera, to restore
the health of these landscapes and these forests
and to mitigate the fire risk long -term, really
from catastrophic wildfire. We're not trying
to remove fire from the landscape. We're trying
to make sure that our landscape is sustainable
and doesn't get absolutely destroyed when the
fire comes through. They cut that funding this
year, basically in half. And so a big part of
your legislative agenda moving forward is to
get that restored in 2026. Is that right? Our
top priority as an agency and my personal top
priority. And because it works, I started to
share a story, the big fire at the gorge. Oh,
that's right. When I was down there just a couple
years, a few years back. We did a bunch of these
forest treatments. We did, I don't know if it
was thinning and fuels reduction, fire lines
around white salmon. And when that fire broke
out, it slowed down as it entered the areas that
we had treated just enough for the first responders
to get there. Had we not done those treatments,
all those structures in white salmon could have
been burned. Also, we used aviation equipment
we purchased with that money to respond to that
fire. And then the local chief of the local fire
district down there pulled me aside unprompted
to say the money that that fire district got
for equipment and for training. was the reason
they were able to get there as fast as they were.
So we had three examples at that fire of where
this funding the legislature gave us made a difference
and saved homes, saved a lot of money, and maybe
even saved some lives. Yeah, no, that's a really
good example, and it's not the first time I've
heard it. not specific necessarily to that particular
fire, but I've heard it in other communities
where, you know, it starts on, for instance,
forest service land or even private land sometimes,
and it gets to the right place, you know, in
an area that DNR has actually done a forest treatment
or has better access or just better management.
And the fire, like you said, it slows down. It
reduces in intensity. in those areas because
you don't necessarily have, you know, this massive
crowning going on and lots of debris on the ground
that just creates those giant heat waves that,
you know, keep a fire going. And they're able
to kind of get that fire line around it, right,
and get that black spot on the map, which is
what we're all looking for. You know, if you've
ever been to fire camp, you know that the black
spots that are filled in, those are the areas
that are good. The rest of the area is not so
good. So that funding is your number one priority.
Let's talk about what else you guys are going
to be working on during the session. Sure. We
kind of do a bottoms -up development of recommendations
at the agency, and I gave some direction at the
start of that process. I said, don't bring me
ideas that cost money. Well, that wouldn't cost
money. Yes, that's a budget request, but in terms
of policy bills. And I said, look for things
to help us generate revenue, help us do things
more efficiently, help us as an agency save money
and be more efficient. And so we will have a
few pieces of legislation that we'll be requesting.
One I know we've talked about is we're looking
for more authority to enter into ecosystem service
markets. And that's essentially where you get
in. The most commonly known one is the carbon
market. You hear people talk about that. Can
you get compensated in some way for doing things
that are reduced carbon emissions? A second one
along those lines, we have legislation that's
going to increase our authority to lease our
unutilized water rights. We're exploring some
changes there to give us more flexibility to
do that in ways that we think can meet the public
interest. That's interesting. That's the first
I've heard about that one. I'll be interested
to see. We have a lot of experience here at WASAC
in working with water rights. I'm sure it won't
be controversial at all. Oh, no, water rights,
everyone loves them. Everyone loves to talk about
water rights, and no one gets upset when you
talk about different uses of water rights. This
one will sail through, I'm sure. The concept
is as a state agency, with our land, we have
some rights to the water under it. We don't use
all of it. And right now we can, in some limited
circumstances. let other people use that. And
we're asking to broaden those circumstances when
we could lease that to generate revenue for the
trust and meet other public benefits. You know,
it might allow some unirrigated land to be irrigated.
It might even be one of our trust lands and generate
more money off it. And so we're committed to
working with our, with tribes and local governments
on this and to see if we can find something that
works for everyone, recognizing that there'll
be discussions to be had. We have a piece of
legislation aimed at trying to streamline some
of our timber sale practices. It's stuff just
developed by staff, allowing some more flexibility,
I think, in how we structure some timber sales
designed to maybe hopefully let us save some
administrative funds and maybe generate some
more revenue. We have one that I'm sure the...
County members will have great interest in something
that I committed to as a candidate, and that
is adding a tribal representative to the Board
of Natural Resources. Oh, okay. With the thought
being that, you know, well, the trust is, you
know, right now it's made up of trust managers.
We also have certain tribal treaty rights that
intersect with all of that work, and we see value
in having a voice on there. We're also seeing
more impacts on tribal treaty rights with our
land transactions as we do things like trust
land transfer and land exchanges. You see tribes
losing access, and we think that having someone
from tribal government on there would bring an
added voice. We're also exploring... Trying to
find ways to make sure our firefighters can get
into the firefighter retirement system. We haven't
fleshed that out, but there's some policy changes.
We want to make sure wildland firefighters can
be part of that. Into the left system? Yeah.
Okay. Are they just part of PERS now or something?
I don't know. I believe so. Okay. Interesting.
Well, all these sound like they're going to sail
through in a short 60 -day session. Completely
non -controversial. And we have an interest in
lots of other stuff. We've talked with the counties
about encumbered lands funding and trust land
transfer funding. So on the capital budget side,
there's always... we value and prioritize. And
these aren't the only things. We submit a budget
request where we have ongoing capital projects
like every agency. We're building out the OMAC
airport to have more capacity there, and that
could be a really good economic generation activity
over there. Yeah, for that community, for sure.
Yep, and allow us to do our work more efficiently.
Are you going to put a regional office in there?
Is that what you're thinking? It's not going
to be a regional office, but allowing us to position
more equipment and people there. Oh, okay. The
phase one has been funded. I'm working a lot
with Senator Short, who's from that. area and
we spent some time over there touring it. Yeah,
she's a great representative of that community,
that's for sure. I think she's incredible. When
I was a committee chair, she was the ranking
Republican on my committee and I think the world
of her and we worked very well together. Was
that local government or Ag and Natural Resources?
It was called, the names always changed every
year, but it was House Environment Committee.
Oh, okay. Oh, when you were in the House, that's
right. She was in the House, I forgot. She's
been in the Senate so long, I forgot that she
was in the House previously. So I look to her
for a lot of, I've been over in Eastern Washington
a lot. I think I've had 15 trips over there this
year. Well, if you're going to talk about wildland
fire, right, you're going to be in Eastern Washington,
that's for sure. And like you said, you'd be
careful not to just focus on what you can see
from the space needle. Totally agree. I know
King County. So I'm trying to spend time in parts
of the state I don't know as well to get to know
the people, the flavor of the community. Well,
Commissioner, it's been great to have you. We've
been going at this for about an hour or so, and
I don't want to take up. your entire day although
i feel like we could talk for hours longer we
barely scraped the surface on some of these things
um i hope you'll come back yes i love it anytime
um you know as the session gets going if some
of these bills uh start getting some traction
that might be a great thing for us to talk about
we were very involved in the ecosystem services
bills uh that the agencies had in the past i
I actually spent one evening until 1 .30 in the
morning negotiating one of those bills. Lucky
you. With your predecessor. But we've got a lot
of interest in 1168 and the other bills that
you talked about we'd be very interested in as
well. So if you start to gain traction on some
of those and they start to move, I'd love to
maybe have you back and we can talk a little
bit more detail about them. Cool. Well, have
a great rest of the year. Yes, you too. And we'll
look forward to seeing you again soon. Yes, hopefully
you get some downtime over the holidays. Probably
won't happen, probably like you, because the
session's coming up. I'm going to try. We should
all try. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner. 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.