Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n, Inc. v. State ex rel. Andrus
Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 20815,SELKIRK-PRIEST,20815 |
Citation | 127 Idaho 239,899 P.2d 949 |
Parties | , 102 Ed. Law Rep. 823 BASIN ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho Non-profit Corporation, and Idaho Environmental Council, an Idaho Non-profit Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Respondents, v. STATE of Idaho, ex rel., Cecil ANDRUS, Governor; Pete T. Cenarrusa, Secretary of State; Larry EchoHawk, Attorney General; J.D. Williams, State Auditor; and Jerry L. Evans, Superintendent of Public Instruction, as the State Board of Land Commissioners, and Stanley F. Hamilton, Department of Lands, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Respondents, and Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant. Coeur D'Alene, October 1994 Term |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Landeck, Westberg, Judge & Graham, Moscow, David P. Boswell, Spokane, WA, for appellants. Charles L. Graham and David P. Boswell argued.
Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Steven J. Schuster, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents State of Idaho et al. Steven J. Schuster argued.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Field, Chtd., Boise, for intervenor. Stephen R. Thomas argued.
Selkirk-Priest Basin Association and Idaho Environmental Council (collectively referred to herein as the environmental groups) filed an action against the State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands (collectively referred to herein as the Land Board) seeking to challenge the Land Board's decision to sell timber on school endowment trust lands in the Trapper Creek watershed in Bonner and Boundary Counties. The timber sale at issue is known as the Lower Green Bonnet Timber Sale. The environmental groups allege that the Lower Green Bonnet Timber Sale will result in erosion detrimental to Trapper Creek and that the Land Board's state-wide harvest goals will result in deleterious long-term effects to the value of school endowment trust lands. Intervenor-Intermountain Forest Industry Association (IFIA) represents Idaho's timber industry, including the company that successfully bid to purchase the timber at issue.
The Land Board filed for summary judgment claiming that the environmental groups lacked standing to bring an action challenging the Land Board's decision to sell timber on school endowment trust lands. The environmental groups filed a motion to conduct additional discovery in order to better respond to the motion for summary judgment. The additional discovery requested by the environmental groups was limited to the issues of redressability and ripeness of their claim that they would be damaged by the state-wide timber harvest goals of the Land Board.
The district court denied the environmental groups' motion and granted the Land Board's motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the environmental groups lacked standing to challenge the Land Board's action because neither the associations nor their members could show that the Land Board's action would cause the type of individualized injury that could be redressed by the court. The district court also ruled that neither the associations nor their members had standing as the beneficiaries of the Idaho school endowment lands trust or under the public trust doctrine.
The environmental groups appealed, arguing that they have standing to sue the Land Board on all of the grounds rejected by the district court. The environmental groups also appealed the district court's ruling denying their request to conduct additional discovery in order to resist the summary judgment motion of the Land Board. The environmental groups also raise several issues for the first time on appeal, including their request for attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine. On cross-appeal, IFIA maintains that the district court improperly considered inadmissible affidavits submitted by the environmental groups.
We begin by re-stating the applicable standard of review:
In an appeal from an order of summary judgment, this Court's standard of review is the same as the standard used by the district court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Farm Credit Bank of Spokane v. Stevenson, 125 Idaho 270, 272, 869 P.2d 1365, 1367 (1994); East Lizard Butte Water Corp. v. Howell, 122 Idaho 679, 681, 837 P.2d 805, 807 (1992). All disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record are to be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Bonz v. Sudweeks, 119 Idaho 539, 541, 808 P.2d 876, 878 (1991). Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 769, 820 P.2d 360, 364 (1991).
Thomson v. Idaho Ins. Agency, Inc., 126 Idaho 527, 887 P.2d 1034 (1994).
Although composed of individuals, the environmental groups brought suit in their organizational capacities. Therefore, principles of associational standing as previously outlined by this Court apply:
In Idaho, the elements of associational standing are derived from the United States Supreme Court's analysis of this issue. Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass'n v. Bird, 106 Idaho 84, 675 P.2d 344 (Ct.App.1984). Although some elements of standing in the federal system are colored by the constitutional requirements of a 'case' or 'controversy,' the Supreme Court's analyses of associational standing are instructive. Id. at 87, 675 P.2d at 347. The Supreme Court analyses referred to by the Glengary court are established in the landmark case of Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
There is no question that an association may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy. Moreover, in attempting to secure relief from injury to itself the Association may assert the rights of its members, at least so long as the challenged infractions adversely affect its members' associational ties. E.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 [78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488] (1958).
....
Even in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members. National Motor Freight Assn v. United States, 372 U.S. 246 [83 S.Ct. 688, 9 L.Ed.2d 709] (1963).... The association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-41 [92 S.Ct. 1361, 1366-69, 31 L.Ed.2d 636] (1972). So long as this can be established, and so long as the nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the case, the association may be an appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court's jurisdiction.
Warth, 422 U.S. at 511, 95 S.Ct. at 2211-12. Bear Lake Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Trustees of Bear Lake School Dist. # 33, 116 Idaho 443, 448, 776 P.2d 452, 457 (1989).
The question of standing in this case thus depends on whether either the environmental groups or the members of the environmental groups face "injury." This in turn is determined by whether the groups or the members have a "right to judicial relief" under the relevant "constitutional or statutory provision[s]" at issue. Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206 (footnote omitted). The first provisions under which the environmental groups claim standing are Article IX, §§ 8 and 4 of the Idaho Constitution establishing the school endowment lands trust.
The parties disagree about who are the beneficiaries of the school endowment lands trust established by Article IX, §§ 8 and 4 of the Idaho Constitution. The environmental groups maintain that the schoolchildren are the trust beneficiaries; the Board and the IFIA argue that the beneficiaries of the trust are the school districts and schools. The language of Article IX, § 8 of the Idaho Constitution reads in relevant part as follows:
§ 8. Location and disposition of public lands.--It shall be the duty of the state board of land commissioners to provide for the location, protection, sale or rental of all the lands heretofore, or which may hereafter be granted to or acquired by the state by or from the general government, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted or to the state if not specifically granted; provided, that no state lands shall be sold for less than the appraised price....
Idaho Const., art. IX, § 8, as amended (emphasis added).
In Moon v. State Bd. of Land Commrs., 111 Idaho 389, 724 P.2d 125 (1986), this Court explained the relationship between the school endowment lands trust and the public school fund trust in upholding as constitutional a statute allowing for application of up to 10% of the proceeds from endowment land timber sales and grazing leases for maintenance and protection of those lands:
The State of Idaho manages two separate trusts for the benefit of public schools. The Public School Fund is the res of the first trust, which is invested by the Investment Board. I.C. § 57-715 et seq. The State's constitutional responsibilities regarding this trust and the protection of the money corpus are found in ID. CONST. art. 9, § 3. The second trust consists of school endowment lands managed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Union v. DEPT. OF EMP. SEC.
...304 S.E.2d 708 (1983); Aged Hawaiians v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 78 Hawai'i 192, 891 P.2d 279 (1995); Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. State ex rel. Andrus, 127 Idaho 239, 899 P.2d 949 (1995); Citizens for Washington Square v. City of Davenport, 277 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 1979); Kansas Bar Ass'n v. J......
-
Decision Dated Sept. 23, 2008, Approving Friends of Minidoka, Dean & Eden Dimond, Harold & Carolyn Dimond, Wayne Sloan, Guardian of James Sloan, the Idaho Rural Council, Inc. v. Jerome Cnty. (In re Jerome Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners)
...members face injury and could meet the requirements of standing on an individual basis. Selkirk–Priest Basin Ass'n, Inc. v. State ex rel. Andrus, 127 Idaho 239, 241–42, 899 P.2d 949, 951–52 (1995).The Jerome County Zoning Ordinance 13–6.04 indicates the procedure for the appeal of a LCO dec......
-
Citizens Against Linscott/Interstate Asphalt Plant v. Bonner Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners
...utilizes a test for associational standing derived from the United State Supreme Court. Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n, Inc. v. State ex rel. Andrus , 127 Idaho 239, 241–42, 899 P.2d 949, 951–52 (1995) (quoting Bear Lake Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs. of Bear Lake Sch. Dist. #33 , 116 Idaho 443, 44......
-
Van Valkenburgh v. Citizens for Term Limits
...has held that in order to have standing, the petitioners must allege an injury of some sort. Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 127 Idaho 239, 242, 899 P.2d 949, 952 (1995) (SPBA I). This Court has determined that "[A] citizen and taxpayer may not challenge a governmental enactment ......
-
Laws governing recreational access to waters of the Columbia Basin: a survey and analysis.
...Limitation on the Public Trust Doctrine, 34 IDAHO L. REV. 91, 96 n.29 (1997). (210) Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. State ex rel. Andrus, 899 P.2d 949 (Idaho 1995). The court held that the public trust doctrine might prohibit logging if it would substantially impair public trust interests in ......
-
Trust principles as a tool for grazing reform: learning from four state cases.
...STATE TRUST LANDS, supra note 15, at 139-40. (159) IDAHO CODE [section] 58-310 (Michie 2002). (160) Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. State, 899 P.2d 949 (Idaho (161) Id. at 950. (162) Id. at 952. (163) Id. One justice dissented from the court's holding on this point, stating that "[t]he true b......
-
How the Successes and Failures of the Clean Water Act Fueled the Rise of the Public Trust Doctrine and the Rights of Nature Movement.
...Id. at 197. Idaho Supreme Court decisions converging on Audubon Society approach: Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. State ex rel. Andrus, 899 P.2d 949, 953-54 (Idaho 1995) (suggesting that the public trust doctrine might be used to constrain harm from logging activities to an impacted water bod......
-
Public trust and distrust: the theoretical implications of the public trust doctrine for natural resource management.
...ecology against the appropriations of a ski resort for snow-making purposes). (90) See Selkirk-Priest Basin Ass'n v. Idaho ex rel. Andrus, 899 P.2d 949, 953-55 (Idaho 1995) (holding the public trust doctrine conferred standing to an environmental group to challenge a timber sale on state fo......