Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court flatly rejected a lumber company’s argument that the state forestry department is solely responsible for protecting waters affected by timber harvesting. The decision Monday upholds an appeal court ruling that said the Forest Practice Act of 1973 expressly provides for cooperation between state agencies in regulating the lumber industry. Specifically, a savings clause in the act guaranteed the cooperative authority of various state agencies, including the water board, to weigh in on timber-harvesting permits, the court held. Despite the clause, plaintiffs Pacific Lumber Co. and Scotia Pacific Co. argued that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection had final authority in deciding whether a proposed logging operation complies with state water laws. Pacific Lumber’s attorneys argued in Humboldt County Superior Court that the savings clause applied only in situations in which the Forest Practice Act is vague or silent. That position, however, failed to sway the Supreme Court. “This interpretation makes no sense,” wrote Justice Carlos Moreno. “The very purpose of the savings clause is to preserve state agencies’ authority as to matters implicated by the Forest Practice Act.” The ruling, Pacific Lumber v. State Water Resources Control Board, 06 C.D.O.S. 886, vindicates environmentalists who took serious interest in the case and preserved the state water board’s power to regulate loggers. Pacific Lumber’s construction also ignored the “obvious meaning” of the savings clause, Moreno continued. “We take the phrase ‘no provision’ to mean what it says, that nothing within the Forest Practice Act � implicitly bars the water boards from fulfilling their independent obligation,” he wrote. In its decision, the Supreme Court said Pacific Lumber failed to develop a pair of claims in trial court that it subsequently made in the court of appeal and again before the Supreme Court. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Stern said he was surprised the court ruled unanimously in favor of the water board. “I thought our position was legally very good, but I did not know for sure that we were going to win and I didn’t get that impression during oral arguments,” he said.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.