For this reader, the term "industrial logging" is, on its face, a source of amusement. As if there were any alternative harvest practice, say hobby loggin' or sports loggin' for instance.

Had any such low-impact harvest ever existed, it wasn't as profitable, and has long since gone extinct. Everything comes down to cost, and it all depends on who pays. The winning business plan is, and has always been, to privatize the assets and socialize the liabilities. Yes, reverse socialism.

And so there just isn't that much new about the downstream effect of massive harvests in municipal watersheds. The only notable change has been the timeline, the locale and the level of turbidity.

Speaking of turbidity, history will show that municipalities at risk can't rely on forest practices reform to protect their water source. The Oregon Forest Practices Act of 1971 arrived on the heels of watershed destruction during the last go-round. By coincidence, 40 years after reforestation, in 2020, the next plantation was ready for harvest. Rinse and repeat.

Townships by now ought to be able to seize their watershed by right of eminent domain. But that won't happen without legislative sanction, and such radical reform will never come without campaign finance reform.

Follow the money, but look no further than the Oregon Forest & Industries Council — or its captive, #TimberUnity — influence in our most recent general election. Without campaign finance reform, don't expect radical forest practices reform.

GARY DURHEIM

Seaside