S-430-116
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by Mike Crapo (R-ID)
What it does
This bill would extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS) through fiscal years 2019 and 2020, continuing federal payments to states and counties that contain large amounts of non-taxable federal forest land. It would also extend the authority for counties to conduct special projects on federal land and to spend county funds through 2022–2023. The payments are intended to compensate local governments for tax revenue they cannot collect on federally owned land.
Who benefits
Rural counties in western states (and some eastern states) that contain large tracts of national forests and other federal lands — particularly in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana, California, and Alaska. Local school districts that receive a share of SRS payments for education funding. County road departments that use funds for infrastructure maintenance. Residents of these counties who depend on locally funded schools and roads. Timber-dependent communities that lost revenue when federal timber harvests declined in the 1990s.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who fund the payments, which substitute for timber receipts that have declined significantly. Counties that do not contain federal land and receive no comparable payment. Advocates for reducing federal spending who argue the payments subsidize local governments without requiring fiscal self-sufficiency. Potentially, counties that might otherwise pursue alternative economic development if federal payments reduce urgency to diversify revenue bases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that counties with large federal land holdings are structurally unable to generate property tax revenue from those lands, creating a fiscal gap that is not of their own making. They contend that SRS payments are essential to maintaining rural schools and roads in communities that have already absorbed severe economic losses from the decline of federal timber harvests — losses documented in USDA Forest Service data showing harvest reductions of over 80% since the late 1980s. Without an extension, these counties would face immediate budget shortfalls affecting basic public services.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that SRS payments have functioned as an open-ended federal subsidy that insulates rural counties from the fiscal consequences of land-use decisions made at the federal level, reducing incentives for economic diversification. They contend that the program has been repeatedly extended since 2000 without a long-term solution, and that continuing short-term reauthorizations — rather than enacting permanent policy — leaves counties in perpetual uncertainty while adding to federal expenditures without addressing the underlying structural mismatch between federal land ownership and local revenue needs.