Conservation Nw. v. Comm'r of Pub. Lands
| Decision Date | 21 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 99183-9 |
| Citation | 514 P.3d 174 |
| Parties | CONSERVATION NORTHWEST, Washington Environmental Council, and Olympic Forest Coalition, Appellants, Mike Town, an individual; Holly Koon and Max Duncan, a married couple; Linda Lorenz, an individual, Peter Bahls, an individual; Scott Wallace, an individual, and Marcy Golde, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, Hilary Franz (in her official capacity), Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington State Board of Natural Resources, Respondents, Wahkiakum County, Pacific County, Skamania County, Mason County, Lewis County, Concrete School District, Quillayute Valley School District No. 402, Naselle-Grays River School District, Darrington School District, Clallam County Fire District No. 4, Clallam County Fire District No. 5, Port of Port Angeles, American Forest Resource Council, and City of Forks, Intervenor-Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Wyatt Foster Golding, Ziontz Chestnut, 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 1230, Seattle, WA, 98121-2323, Peter Robert Goldman, Washington Forest Law Center, 4132 California Ave., Sw, Seattle, WA, 98116-4102, for Appellant(s).
Patricia Hickey O'Brien, Attorney at Law, 3012 Aspinwall Rd., Nw, Olympia, WA, 98502-1531, Martha Ffrost Wehling, Terence Pruit, Washington Attorney General's Office, 1125 Washington Street, Se., Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, Elaine Louise Spencer, Northwest Resource Law PLLC, 71 Columbia St. Ste. 325, Seattle, WA, 98104-1465, David Owen Bechtold, Attorney at Law, 1500 Sw 1st Ave. Ste. 985, Portland, OR, 97201-5823, Christopher Thomas Wion, Summit Law Group PLLC, 315 5th Ave. S. Ste. 1000, Seattle, WA, 98104-2682, for Respondent(s).
Nathan Yandala Bishop, Attorney at Law, 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 3900, Seattle, WA, 98154-1051, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Climate Action Families.
William W. Honea, Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney, 605 S. 3rd St., Mount Vernon, WA, 98273-3867, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Skagit County.
Keith Evan Cohon, Attorney at Law, 6210 Sycamore Ave., Nw, Seattle, WA, 98107-2043, Dakota Lee Rash, Attorney at Law, 3820 Ne 155th Pl. Apt. 702, Lake Forest Park, WA, 98155-6742, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Judith Billings and Barbara Schaad-Lamphere.
Anastasia Maier, Attorney at Law, 26311 Ne Valley St., Duvall, WA, 98019-8435, Elizabeth Dunne, Earth Law Center, P. O. Box 3164, Boulder, CO, 80307, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Earth Law Center, 350 Everett 350 Seattle, Kitsap Environmental Coalition, and Emergency Conservation Committee-Pnw.
David Alan Bricklin, Alexander Arthur Sidles, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, 123 Nw, 36th Street, Suite 205, Seattle, WA, 98107, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Ernest G. Niemi.
Jennifer D. Calkins, Attorney at Law, 6224 41st Ave., Ne, Seattle, WA, 98115-7508, Andrew McAleer Hawley, Attorney at Law, 1402 3rd Ave., Ste. 1022, Seattle, WA, 98101-2110, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Mason County Climate Justice.
Robert Bertelson Mitchell Jr., K & L Gates LLP, 925 4th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA, 98104-1158, Daniel Kelly-Stallings, Attorney at Law, 925 4th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA, 98104-1158, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa. Forest Protection Association
Paul J. Lawrence, Pacifica Law Group LLP, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, Zachary Jones Pekelis, Pacifica Law Group, 1191 2nd Ave., Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3404, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa. Assoc. of Counties.
Ryen L. Godwin, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt P.C., 1420 5th Ave., Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA, 98101-2339, Molly Henry, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, 1420 5th Ave., Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA, 98101-2339, Mark Phares, Montana Dept. of Nat. Resources, 1139 Eleventh Avenue, Helena, MT, 59601, Brian Bramblett, Montana Dept. of Nat. Resources, 1139 Eleventh Avenue, Helena, MT, 59601, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Matthew Edward Barber, Washington Attorney General's Office, P. O. Box 40100, Olympia, WA, 98504-0100, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa State School Directors' Assoc.
Robert Andrew Battles, Association of Washington Business, 1414 Cherry St., Se., Olympia, WA, 98501-2341, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Assoc. of Washington Business.
Laura Elizabeth Ewan, Attorney at Law, 9000 Machinists Place, Upper Marlboro, MD, 20772, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa. Council for Machinists.
¶ 1 The respondents in this case, the Commissioner of Public Lands, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and the Board of Natural Resources (collectively DNR) manage approximately three million acres of forested state-owned lands. Although the precise acreage has fluctuated over time, several hundreds of thousands of acres of land were initially granted to the State of Washington by the federal government pursuant to the Omnibus Enabling Act of 1889, ch. 180, 25 Stat. 676 (Enabling Act). This significant land grant was made "for the support of common schools" and other state institutions. Individual counties have also granted land to the State pursuant to RCW 79.22.040 with the explicit understanding that they are held in trust for the benefit of those counties (county beneficiaries). RCW 79.64.110(1) (). The case before us concerns DNR's land management strategies applicable to these federal land grants ("state lands") and county land grants ("forest board lands"), which involves harvesting timber from these lands to generate revenue for state institutions and counties.
¶ 2 The petitioners in this case, a group of individuals and nonprofit organizations (collectively Conservation NW), challenge DNR's land management strategies on the grounds that they violate the mandate under Washington Constitution article XVI, section 1 that "[a]ll the public lands granted to the state are held in trust for all the people." Conservation NW argues that DNR's strategies prioritize maximizing revenue from timber harvests and undercut its obligation to manage granted lands for the broader public interest, which would be better served by prioritizing conservation and efforts to mitigate climate change, wildfires, and land erosion. DNR contends that it has a trustee obligation to manage the state and forest board lands specifically for the state institutions enumerated in the Enabling Act and the county beneficiaries. DNR acknowledges that its land management strategies do generate revenue but not "at the expense of forest health," as Conservation NW suggests. Br. of Resp'ts at 32. DNR emphasizes that its strategies necessarily comply with other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 - 1544, and the sustained harvest act, RCW 79.10.300 -.340, which are designed to restrict timber harvests to limit negative effects on our ecosystem.
¶ 3 The trial court dismissed Conservation NW's lawsuit against DNR based on its conclusion that County of Skamania v. State , 102 Wash.2d 127, 685 P.2d 576 (1984), conclusively established that DNR was a trustee under the Enabling Act. As discussed in Section III.A, infra while Skamania correctly concluded DNR is obligated as a trustee to manage state lands for the beneficiaries enumerated in the Enabling Act, its holding is not determinative of the issues before us.
¶ 4 Although the Enabling Act did not use express trust language, its terms restricting the disposition of state lands and the resources derived from those lands demonstrate that the federal government intended the lands to be held in trust for the benefit of enumerated state institutions. Our constitution, including article XVI, section 1, was drafted in accordance with the provisions of the Enabling Act. The general provision that granted lands must be held in trust for all Washingtonians does not preclude DNR from exercising its discretion to generate revenue from timber harvests on granted lands. Of note, DNR is expressly required by statute to harvest timber from forest board lands and may conduct other compatible activities in its discretion. As DNR emphasizes, generating revenue from timber harvests helps boost local economies and maintain state institutions. Because the general population of Washington stands to gain from increased economic, educational, and governmental stability, DNR's land management strategies do not violate article XVI, section 1. Although there are likely multiple alternative ways to generate revenue from state lands, because DNR's land management strategies are neither unconstitutional nor arbitrary and capricious, we are not empowered to weigh in on DNR's exercise of its discretion in managing state and forest board lands.
¶ 5 We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case on the alternate grounds set forth below.
¶ 6 In January 2020, Conservation NW filed suit against DNR,1 challenging two resolutions approved by the Board of Natural Resources in December 2019, which relate to the conservation of marbled murrelet2 habitat as well as timber harvests on state and forest board lands. The first was "Resolution No. 1559," the Marbled Murrelet Long-Term Conservation Strategy (Marbled Murrelet Strategy), which replaced an interim conservation plan in DNR's 1997 habitat conservation plan with a long-term strategy to minimize and mitigate "any incidental take" of marbled murrelet habitat through DNR's other activities, including timber harvests, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1539. The second was "Resolution No. 1560," the sustainable harvest level calculation ("Harvest Calculation"), which set the "sustainable harvest level" for timber culled from "forested State Trust lands in Western Washington" in accordance with the public lands act, RCW 79.10.320. Clerk's Papers at 277-79. The Harvest Calculation set an annual harvest level of 465 million board...
To continue reading
Request your trial