Land Development

While parts of Rural Oregon have been developing rapidly (especially around Bend), many parts of the state, especially further east of the Cascades remain very sparsely populated and undeveloped. The state and federal forest services just published a study of land use in Eastern Oregon, examining the type and extent of development there over the last quarter century. This study follows one from a couple years ago that examined the land west of the Cascades.

Here are some of the results. Note that while I'll discuss all of Oregon, this article is about the new report on Eastern Oregon.

Private timberlands and open range in Eastern Oregon are giving way to houses nestled among woods and fields, according to report released this week by the U.S. Forest Service and Oregon Department of Forestry.

Titled "Forests, Farms & People," the report addresses changes in land use in Eastern Oregon, including Klamath and Lake counties, from 1975 to 2001. The most significant shifts occurred on private land in Deschutes and Klamath counties, particularly in areas close to the city of Bend, according to the report.

While there has been a noticeable boom in development around Bend, the expansion around Klamath Falls and throughout southern Klamath County has been more subtle, said Gary Lettman, principal forest economist for the department in Salem.

"It's still fairly rapid development compared to the rest of Eastern Oregon," Lettman said.

Nearly half of Oregon's lands are owned by the federal government (49.7 percent), and only a tiny percentage of it is developed. Note though in these studies, undeveloped land isn't the same thing as preserved land, as agriculture, ranching, logging, etc. can be done on undeveloped land.

As would be expected, rural land in Western Oregon is being developed more quickly overall than in Eastern Oregon. Take Deschutes County (Bend) out of the equation and the statistics are even more lopsided.

89 percent of the non-federal land west of the Cascades is forested or in agricultural use. Oregon's land-use program (the identification and enforcement of urban growth boundaries) does seem to be slowing the conversion of these lands into developed areas. Nonetheless, the density of dwellings in forested and agricultural areas continues to increase. Unsurprisingly, these types of development are occuring most quickly in the Willamette Valley, with development in the Portland area being the fastest in the state (total land, not percentage...Bend's growth is from a much lower base). The slowest land development west of the Cascades is along the north coast.

97 percent of the non-federal land east of the Cascades is in forest, range, or agricultural use, with the only significant growth occuring in Deschutes and Klamath Counties (65 percent of all the land development east of the Cascades). Near Bend over the last quarter century, the low-density residential areas increased by 86 percent and the urban area increased by 126 percent. In that time, Bend's population more than tripled and the Deschutes County population doubled...little wonder there's been considerable development there.

According to the report:

"In Klamath County outside of the Bend area, the rate of growth was also high; urban land uses increased by 36 percent and low-density residential areas increased by 246 percent."

But that impressive figure of more than 200 percent is put into context when the total amount of developed land in the county is taken into account.

"The proportion of developed area in Klamath County remains relatively low, at about 2 percent," he said. "The actual numbers aren't huge," Lettman said.

When you figure that Klamath County's population only rose by a little over 10 percent in the last quarter century (a pittance compared to Deschutes County), a goodly percentage of the county's growth was folks moving into the countryside. The keys in rural areas are roads, electricity, and the accompanying telephone lines...homes usually have their own wells and septic systems. Little wonder roadless areas are an emotional subject for environmentalists.

Wildland range is still the dominant type of land in most of Klamath County and eastern Oregon, he said. The study, which took into account 17 counties east of the Cascade Mountains, showed there was a shift back from industrial ownership, including mostly timber land, to non-industrial ownership.

Some people are buying the land to develop into neighborhoods tucked into the forest, and some are using it for other things.

"People are buying big chunks of acreage to have it and just use it for their own recreational use," Lettman said.

Here in timber country, there is a small statistical relationship between low density home development and less tree stocking and thinning...in other words, people who live amongst the trees are a bit more inclined to leave them alone. But once those folks cut their trees down, they rarely replant them.

That pattern certainly applies here in JoCo. Most folks like their trees and nestle their houses amongst them (still with a view, if possible). These folks (like me) thin some for fire safety and firewood, but otherwise basically leave the woods alone. There are a few folks that like large lawns (good well required) or want horse pastures...those trees become firewood.

As the metropolises west of the Cascades spread, agricultural land is being developed more quickly than forest land. Agricultural land is generally flatter and closer to town, which is part of the reason why the U.S. has a disturbing tendency to bury its best agricultural land underneath suburban sprawl. Low density development is growing a bit faster than urban development overall, but most of that development is within a mile of urban areas.

According to the report: "From 1975 to 2001, wildland forest decreased by 1 percent and wildland range decreased by 2 percent. The amount of land used for intensive agriculture increased by 1 percent during the same time period."

Wildland forest decreased by about 176,280 acres, and wildland range decreased by about 352,560 acres, while intensive agriculture increased by 176,280 acres.

In all, more than 17 million acres were examined in the study.

He said the report could be used by policy makers to figure out what uses land should be zoned for over the next several years.

Overall, Oregon is not developing its land very quickly, thanks in part to the folks who developed the urban growth boundary concept. It would be interesting to see some analysis of whether our development controls have had an adverse impact on job growth here. I'd suspect the answer would be yes, but the overall impact would be small...we're not very business-friendly for a number of reasons (one of my favorite blogging topics).

Our growth restrictions are also responsible for a goodly portion of another type of growth, that of our housing prices and rents. By placing considerable restrictions on land use in most areas, we make the remaining land more valuable. That increased expense is harming lower income folks in the state. Overall, our land use restrictions have increased the quality of life for our haves and decreased it for our have-nots.

Oregon's elite decry the poverty and hunger in the state, yet through their actions show they are more interested in preserving their views and decreasing urban sprawl than they are in doing things that would actually help the poor. If Oregon were economically stronger and growing more quickly, it could use its larger tax base to better help the poor without changing its cherished land use restrictions. But the state is also choking off its growth through business-unfriendly laws and actions.

It's our own choices that have made unemployment and poverty high here in Oregon. And the majority of Oregonians are still taking the easy way out, blaming Bush, the bubble bursting, whatever they can that's beyond our control. And come November, we're going to return most of the uncompromising partisans to Salem and expect positive change? Whose fault is that?

Denial is easier and uglier than taking responsibility.

Comments

[RoguePundit]

Timothy, I moved your comment on the UBESD to the Sep 18 post on that subject...it was obviously misplaced here.