Our Issue: THP Fees

What’s the deal?

This is another manifestation of the state budget office’s contortions to cut the state budget without actually cutting the budget.  Their position in this case is that they have been subsidizing forestry by paying the reviewing agencies to review timber harvest plans from the general fund.  They now want landowners to pay directly for their “services”.

The state has made several attempts to put the load of timber harvest plan review on the backs of the landowners.  The latest attempt was AB 1005, which was killed in committee earlier this year after the forest community went up in arms.

There has been very little action among the agencies to actually root out redundancies in the regulations.  The issue opened up again in September when the Center for Biological Diversity protested the cutting of Fish and Game funding and threatened a lawsuit, saying the funding was no longer sufficient to allow Fish and Game to do their CEQA duties.

The Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee held a hearing to debate THP costs and how they should be financed on September 27, 2010.  CCFA sent the following letter in advance of the meeting, and Board member Cate Moore testified at the hearing. 

A lot of systemic problems were revealed and discussed in this hearing, and many representatives are very concerned about the loss of jobs in their districts.  The focus of the hearing went from the fees to the question of where did California go so very wrong and what can be done to correct the situation.  Key points raised included:

* The number of harvest permits submitted per year has been going down, yet the agencies’ costs are not shrinking to match.  Instead, they are increasing.

* 80 of California’s lumber mills have disappeared in the last 20 years

*  California’s permitting process costs 8.43 times as much as Oregon’s and 7.63 times as much as Washington’s.

*  It takes about two months, start to finish, to process a Washington permit.  It often takes over a year in California.  This puts California forestry at a huge competitive disadvantage.

Why do I care?

Forestry is already a faltering business in California and most of its ills can be directly traced to California’s regulatory structure.  Despite the fact that California’s forests are growing enough volume to sustainably meet the needs of its citizens, 80% of the wood products used in California are imported from states and countries where the costs of doing business are much smaller.  The state is losing about a billion dollars in business revenue and thousands of jobs to places with much lower environmental standards.

CCFA’s members have pinned much of their fortunes in forestry.  If we are to stay alive, we need to find a way to become competitive again.

This is beginning to look like an excellent opportunity to make the case for streamlining the paperwork.

Where do I find more?

Agenda and hearing materials for the September 27 hearing: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=423

As more information becomes available, CCFA will post it.

What can I do?

Be prepared to add your voice when the legislature asks for suggestions about improving the process.  The CCFA Board is building a laundry list.

back to the top