The Oregon Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday in a case that for how the state manages forestland and whether counties can depend on timber revenue from state forests.
The state of Oregon is challenging a that required the state to pay more than $1 billion to a handful of timber counties who say they lost money as logging declined.
Attorneys representing the state and 13 counties Tuesday morning.
At issue in the case is whether Oregon breached a contract with these counties by failing to deliver sufficient revenue from harvesting timber on state forestland 鈥� and whether such a contract ever existed.
The counties donated about 700,000 acres of mostly razed and burnt forestlands to the state in the 1930s and 1940s, when they didn鈥檛 have the resources to make the land profitable. The state agreed 鈥渟o as to secure the greatest permanent value of those lands to the state鈥� and kick some of the profits back to the counties.
The phrase 鈥溾�� and what exactly that means is central to the case.
鈥淭he one thing we know that it doesn鈥檛 mean is 鈥榤aximum revenue,鈥欌�� Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, representing the state, told the three-judge panel.
For years, logging state forests factored largely into the budgets of these timber counties and other tax districts and government entities that receive state forest dollars.
However, Oregon cut back on logging over the years as it sought to safeguard wildlife habitat, improve water quality and boost fire resiliency on state forestland. Timber sales dropped as protests, lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits led to tighter restrictions on logging in Oregon.
Timber, and timber counties sued, saying the state owed them money.
In 2019, a Linn County jury agreed and ordered the state to pay $1.06 billion to make up for logging revenue that never materialized.
鈥淭he counties would never have transferred their property to the state without an assurance that the state would apply sustained yield principles to maximize revenue from the land on a long-term basis,鈥� John DiLorenzo, the lead attorney for the counties, told the court.
DiLorenzo added that the greatest permanent value terminology is 鈥渢he only provision of this contract that guarantees to the county that there will be revenue generated.鈥�
Gutman countered that logging revenue isn鈥檛 the only permanent value that forestland can provide and that recreation, habitat protection, flood stabilization and other land uses also contribute.
鈥淚t provides economic value even if the land doesn鈥檛 generate revenue,鈥� Gutman told the court. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not just some 21st-century notion being superimposed on statutes from the 1940s.鈥�
Oral arguments concluded Tuesday morning. The court will now deliberate and decide on the case at a later date.
Copyright 2022 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit .