Wilderness Society v. Kane County, Utah
| Decision Date | 16 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:05-CV-854-TC.,2:05-CV-854-TC. |
| Parties | The WILDERNESS SOCIETY and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Plaintiffs, v. KANE COUNTY, UTAH, a Utah political division, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Heidi J. Mcintosh, Stephen H. Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Salt Lake City, UT, James S. Angell, Edward B. Zukoski, J. McCrystie Adams, Earthjustice, Denver, CO, Robert Baxter Wiygul; Waltzer & Associates, Biloxi, MS, for Plaintiffs.
Shawn T. Welch, A. John Davis, Holme Roberts & Owen, Salt Lake City, UT, Matthew L. Crockett, Beatty & Wozniak PC, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
The Wilderness Society and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (collectively "TWS") challenge Kane County's actions 1 opening a portion of federal land in the County to off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Some of the federal land has been closed to ORV use by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS). TWS claims that the County's actions (enacting Ordinance No.2005-03, posting County road signs, and removing federal agency road closure signs) violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and are pre-empted by various federal laws and regulations.
This matter comes before the court on TWS's Motion for Summary Judgment. TWS seeks a declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional and an order enjoining the County and its Commissioners from opening the land to ORV use.
The County opposes the motion, contending that it has valid existing rights in the roads on federal land and mat such rights take precedence over federal road closures. Specifically, the County contends it has the right to change the classification of the land because it has acquired rights-of-way on the land under a federal statute referred to as R.S. 2477.
The court disagrees that the County currently has valid existing rights under R.S. 2477 for the areas in question, because the County has yet to establish the validity of those rights in a court of law. And although the County seeks to establish the validity of those rights here (it filed a motion to stay under Rule 56(f) and a motion for partial summary judgment that is not yet fully briefed), this case is not the proper forum for such a determination. First, the County has not filed a quiet title action in this case, and, second, even if it had done so, TWS is not the proper party to sue for quiet title.
Consequently, the County's actions, unsupported by any valid existing right under R.S. 2477, are preempted by the Supremacy Clause because they create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's land management objectives as carried out by BLM and NPS. For these reasons, and as set forth more fully below, TWS's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are non-profit environmental organizations whose missions include wilderness preservation. They filed this suit on behalf of their members who use and enjoy the land at issue in this suit.2
In their First Amended Complaint, they allege in their first cause of action that Kane County's sign posting and removal of BLM road closure signs, as well as enactment of the 2005 Ordinance, violate the Supremacy Clause by opening closed areas of BLM land to ORV use. In their second cause of action, they allege that the 2005 Ordinance violates the Supremacy Clause by opening closed areas on National Park Service lands to ORV use.
In January 2006, in response to TWS's complaint, Kane County moved to dismiss on various grounds,3 including the claim that under the federal statute known as "R.S. 2477,"4 the County (and non-party State of Utah) owned rights-of-way to all the routes that were signed or opened to ORV use and so the County had valid existing rights that federal agencies could not extinguish through administrative road closures. According to the County, TWS's suit was in essence a quiet title action over which the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (See Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss (Dkt # 30) at 2 ().) The County contended that if the court granted the relief sought by TWS, the result would be "to eject Kane County and the State of Utah from ownership and jurisdiction of public roads in Kane County." (Id.)
In the court's August 24, 2006 Order,5 the court denied Kane County's motion, holding, in pertinent part, that:
this Court need not make any final determination regarding the existence of any R.S. 2477 right-of-way in order to grant TWS's requested relief. It need only determine that the County's ordinance and other actions are preempted by federal law where the County has not made the slightest effort to demonstrate—let alone successfully proven— the existence of even a single right-of-way on the federal land in question. This conclusion need not rest on a determination regarding the veracity of any claims the County might have. Rather, the Court need only recognize that the presumption on federal land is that ownership and management authority lies with the federal government arid that any adverse claimant, like the County here perhaps, is not entitled to win title or exercise unilateral management authority until it successfully has carried its burden of proof in a court of law.
Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County, 470 F.Supp.2d 1300, 1306 (D.Utah 2006) (quoting TWS's brief).
The court based its ruling, at least in part, on a 2005 Tenth Circuit decision setting forth the procedure for establishing the validity of claimed R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
This dispute raises the question whether the court should accept the County's claim that it has R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on the land without evidence supporting the claim.... In [Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. BLM, 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir.2005) ], the Tenth Circuit discussed at length "the criteria governing recognition of a valid R.S. 2477 right of way." [SUWA v. BLM, 425 F.3d at 768.] First, the [Court of Appeals] emphasized that the party seeking to enforce rights-of-way against the federal government bears the burden of proof. Id. Then the [Court of Appeals] explained that "this allocation of the burden of proof to the R.S. 2477 is consonant with federal law and federal interests." Id. at 769.
Wilderness Soc'y, 470 F.Supp.2d at 1305-06. Further, although the Tenth Circuit noted in SUWA v. BLM that "[t]itle to an R.S. 2477 right of way ... passes without any procedural formalities and without any agency formality," it also noted "the established rule that land grants are construed favorably to the Government, that nothing passes except what is conveyed in clear language, and that if there are doubts they are resolved for the Government, not against it." SUWA v. BLM, 425 F.3d at 753, 769 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To that end (and as noted above), the Court of Appeals held that the R.S. 2477 claimant bears the burden of proof, in a court of law, to show that its claim to the right-of-way is valid. See id. at 755, 757, 757 n. 12, 758, 769 (). See also Kane County o. Kempthorne, 495 F.Supp.2d 1143, 1155 (D.Utah 2007) ().
In this case, Kane County presents claims of R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways. Accordingly, the court has proceeded, and continues to proceed, with its analysis based on the understanding that Kane County has not presented evidence of any court adjudication that any of its claimed R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is valid.
In May 2007, the County again moved to dismiss,6 this time on the basis that TWS's claims were moot. According to the County, the claims were moot because the County (1) rescinded the Ordinance on December 11, 2006, (2) removed all OHV decals from Kane County road numbering signs on state and federal land, (3) returned the BLM road closure signs to the agency, and (4) swore in an affidavit that the County had no intention of removing any more federal signs.
The court denied the motion to dismiss and provided the following explanation:
The Court finds, inter alia, that a case or controversy remains because Kane County admits that at least 39 County road signs are posted on federal lands that TWS alleges are closed to public motor vehicle use under federal land management plans. The Court also finds that Kane County failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that TWS's claims concerning Kane County Ordinance 2005-03 were moot, given statements and deposition testimony by Kane County commissioners concerning the enactment of off-highway vehicle legislation. Kane County failed to show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982) (citation and quotation omitted).
(Oct. 30, 2007 Order (Dkt # 172).)
Now this matter comes before the court on TWS's Motion for Summary Judgment against the County. TWS seeks a court declaration that the 2005 Ordinance violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. TWS also seeks injunctive relief that would, generally speaking, require the County (1) to remove County road signs that conflict with federal land management plans or federal law; and (2) to refrain from enacting any further ordinance, posting signs or otherwise purporting to manage, maintain, improve or open to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County
...very moment the district court entered its injunction, Kane County persisted in its unlawful actions. See Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County, 560 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1156 (D.Utah 2008). This course of action demonstrates “reluctant submission by governmental actors and a desire to return to the ol......
-
Envtl. Driven Solutions, LLC v. Dunn Cnty.
...by federal law because it "necessarily interfere[d]" with railroad's ability to construct facilities); Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane Cty. , 560 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1159 (D. Utah 2008)vacated on other grounds , 632 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2011) (county's ordinance and actions to manage routes on federal......
-
Kane Cnty. v. United States
...a right-of-way to any such route and establishes the proper scope of such right-of-way in a court of law.The Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County, 560 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1166 (D.Utah 2008) (emphasis added), rev'd by Wilderness Soc'y v. Kane County, 632 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir.2011). Notably, because Ka......
-
Partners v. Belt Ry. Co. of Chi.
...("facts, even if established, would not have affectedthe district court's central legal conclusion"), Wilderness Society v. Kane County, Utah, 560 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1158 (D. Utah 2008) ("information is not relevant because the court does not need to make *** determination to decide the pree......