Washington Supreme Court Rules State Can Log Public Lands, But Doesn't Have To

Posted

Washington state is not constitutionally obligated to maximize revenue from public lands solely through timber sales, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday.

All nine justices voted to uphold the King County Superior Court's decision to dismiss a complaint filed by Conservation NW representing several advocacy groups and individuals that challenged the Department of Natural Resources' management of public lands entrusted to the state. Their decisions said that the use of revenue generated by logging public lands is constitutional, but not the only way to manage public land allowed by the state's constitution.

The court may have dismissed the case but conservationists and advocates reacted positively, arguing the state can now take into account the myriad benefits of a forest, besides revenue from logging, when managing public lands.

The Supreme Court's ruling concerns a complaint filed in January 2020 claiming that the state Department of Natural Resources manages forests on state lands to maximize revenue for certain public projects.

The same lawsuit called for the court to interpret the constitution's language on state lands, arguing the state is obliged to account for the benefits that can be drawn from forests through means other than logging, including carbon sequestration, habitat, employment, flood mitigation, salmon recovery and cultural value.



The state constitution says "all public lands granted to the state are held in trust for all people." The complaint argued that using revenue from logging on public land to support certain projects does not reflect the interests of all people, and the state should instead manage the land in a way that reflects needs like sustainable jobs, climate resilience, salmon recovery and habitat restoration.

The Superior Court ruled in favor of the state. In March, the state Supreme Court decided to review the case, and in October both sides made oral arguments.

The state Supreme Court held Thursday that the state has obligations to manage the land according to the Omnibus Enabling Act of 1889, in which the federal government entrusted Washington with approximately 3 million acres of forested territory "for the support of common schools" and other public institutions.

"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," reads the Supreme Court's majority decision, published Thursday morning.