MENDOCINO COUNTY (Sept. 13, 2004)...
The California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CDF) has been ordered by the Court of Appeals to pay an
environmentalist organization $104,000 for their attorney fees in
litigating against the state agency over California's largest state
forest.The Campaign to Restore
Jackson State Redwood Forest took the agency to court and obtained an
injunction against timber harvesting, contending the management plan for
the forest was being violated and needed updating. The trial court found
that the harm from the harvesting operations could be substantial and,
possibly, irreparable.
When timber work was shut down, the CDF
implemented a new management plan. The agency opposed the group's request
for attorney fees, saying it did not enforce an important right affecting
the public interest. Appellate judges said they disagreed.
"The enforcement of the management
obligations of' State Forests is a right of sufficient importance to
support an award of attorney fees," the judges said. They said the state
agency is "obligated to manage the Jackson State Forest according to
current practices which achieve maximum sustained production of high
quality forest products while giving consideration to values relating to
recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage, fisheries, and
aesthetic enjoyment. Without question, this obligation is an important
right affecting the public interest. This right was enforced by the
Campaign."
The CDF argues that they decided to alter
their management plan, and the environmentalist group was not responsible
for the changes, and therefore did not deserve attorney fees. Appeals
judges saw it different; "The Campaign protected the forest from being
subjected to management practices that did not reflect the best available
thinking about these practices. This significant benefit justifies the
court's fee award."
Finally, CDF argued that in awarding the
fees the trial court did not consider the adverse effects of the
litigation on (the CDF) budget. "The basic problem with defendant's (CDF)
argument is that it suffers from a myopic view of what caused these
budgetary shortfalls," judges said. "The Campaign's effort to stop CDF
from harvesting timber without regard to their management obligations did
not 'cost' defendants these monies. Rather, defendants' inability to
harvest timber in the Jackson State Forest was a result of their failure
to manage the forest in accordance with currently mandated management
practices. The trial court was not required to take into account the
financial impact on defendants in this decision."
>App opinion 9/3/04 A102405 /Mendocino Co 84903
Contact info: Harley Hudson may be
reached at
harleyhudgens@lycos.com. |