Last week Oregon counties got the news that the federal county payments may be extended for another year after all. The deal is still precarious because it hinges on passage of a controversial emergency military funding bill. But even if it comes about - as Congressman Peter DeFazio of the 4th District said he was sure it would - it's clear that it's a one-year reprieve. Some other way will have to be found for the federal government to contribute to the support of counties containing federal forests - small ones like Benton, middling ones like Linn, and big ones like Lane, Douglas and Jackson.

As it happens, there may be a way.

Remember that the federal payments are rooted in the idea that since the land is exempt from local taxation, counties that contain it should share in the commercial proceeds from those lands, meaning from timber sales.

Timber sales have been sharply reduced since the early 1990s in the interest of preserving old growth and saving the northern spotted owl. That's what gave rise to the federal payments law, which paid counties based on the average of the three top years of timber harvesting.

Clearly those days are done. But what about a more modest payment program based at least partly on actual timber revenues on federal land? What about, for example, taking a new look at the Oregon forests under federal management and seeing if some kind of harvest program could be revived based on what has been learned in fields such as forest management, ecology and wildlife biology over the last 20 years?

There's a great deal of interest now in using "biomass" in the forest for fuel and energy. Also, for years we have had debates about how best to protect the forests from conflagrations without snuffing out every little fire. More thinning has been advocated as a way to accomplish both, while also leading to better forest health.

DeFazio, who has been working on forest issues for more than 20 years and knows as much about them as anybody in Congress, says any new approach would have to start by setting aside old growth. Of course.

Beyond that, it might be possible to launch a sustained program of thinning that not only pays for itself but also results in additional revenue to support payments to the counties, at the same time as improving the health of the forest and its wildlife, and allowing recreation too.

What it will take is a good deal of legislative skill, along with a recognition on all sides that there must be a way to manage our forests so that they will always be there while also generating enough revenue to give rural counties the help they need. (hh)