Supreme Court slaps down SUWA [The greenies lost their case]

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 6/15/2004 | Robert Gehrke

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a bid by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to force the Bush administration to limit off-road vehicle traffic in potential Utah wilderness areas -- a decision praised by off-road enthusiasts.

Attorneys for the environmental group had argued that the Bureau of Land Management had an obligation to crack down on off-road vehicle use to protect several potential wilderness areas.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said forcing the BLM to act would insert the court into the day-to-day operations of the agency.

A ruling in SUWA's favor "would divert BLM's energies from other projects throughout the country that are in fact more pressing. While such a decree might please the environmental plaintiffs in the present case, it would ultimately operate to the detriment of sound environmental management," Scalia wrote.

"It's the best news we've had in a long time," said Rainer Huck, president of the Utah Shared Access Alliance, an off-road vehicle group. He said the ruling would "help break SUWA's stranglehold on management of our public lands through litigation."

SUWA attorney Heidi McIntosh said the group will keep trying through other administrative, legal and congressional avenues to force the BLM to act.

Huck, she said, "should know us better than that. Were not folding up our tent and going away."

The 5-year-old case centered on the BLM's management of federal land in Kane, San Juan and Emery counties. Environmentalists argued the land is pristine and deserves to be protected as wilderness and that the BLM has a legal obligation to protect the land from damage by off-road vehicles until a decision is made on wilderness designation.

The BLM had failed to stop the off-road damage, SUWA said, and SUWA sued to force the BLM to take action.

Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said the administration welcomed the ruling, which will allow land managers to "use their expertise to make day-to-day management decisions without unnecessary litigation."

"We've about had it in Utah with environmental groups trying to micromanage, through the courts, decisions that should be left to the professionals on the ground," said Sen. Orrin Hatch. "Today, the Supreme Court has said, 'Enough is enough, let's let the professionals do their jobs.' "

But McIntosh said the whole point of the lawsuit was to try to get the BLM to do its job and protect the federal land. Without legal recourse, the land-use plans prepared by the BLM are meaningless, she said.

Had SUWA prevailed, the effects of the ruling could have been far-reaching. Not only could the BLM have been forced to follow the land-use plans it has for the 261 million acres under its authority, but groups could have sued any government agency to force a federal action.

And off-road groups had already prepared a list of route designations and land-use decisions pending before the BLM that they could seek to resolve through lawsuits, said Brian Hawthorne, public lands director for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group that seeks access to public lands for motorized recreation.

"We're reluctant litigators," Hawthorne said, but "the litigation door that would have been opened in this case swings both ways."

[SandRat]

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a bid by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to force the Bush administration to limit off-road vehicle traffic in potential Utah wilderness areas ,,,

Sound like a frew WATERMELLONS got busted open.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Bumpt!

[Mister Baredog]

Unanimous?????This is hugh! Seriesly.

[EggsAckley]

What a bunch of arrogant elitists!!

[Lurking Libertarian]

An interesting article on this case (from when it was argued).

[o_zarkman44]

To these people everywhere is a potential wilderness area.
If this was allowed to proceed there would no longer be such a thng as private property because it could be considered a "potential" wilderness designation.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

To these clowns, a vacant lot in the Bronx is a "potential wilderness area".

And there's always somebody on these threads who asks, "What do you have against wilderness preservation?" I'll answer that question: This has nothing to do with protecting wilderness. This is about a bunch of wealthy Hollywood/Kennedy-type liberals locking up the public lands to everybody except themselves to be enjoyed by them only. It's unbelievable that the worker-bee treehuggers can't see this. They're fighting the battles of the Kennedys, Robert Redfords, and Ted Turners of the world. They're too stupid to see that if they win, they'll be locked out too!