Wyoming's roadless rule challenge back in court

A federal judge who ruled the Clinton-era roadless rule invalid four years ago was urged to do so again during a 4 1/2-hour hearing Friday on Wyoming's second attempt to shoot down the ban on logging, mining and other development on millions of acres of forest land nationwide.

CHEYENNE -- A federal judge who ruled the Clinton-era roadless rule invalid four years ago was urged to do so again during a 4 1/2-hour hearing Friday on Wyoming's second attempt to shoot down the ban on logging, mining and other development on millions of acres of forest land nationwide.

The roadless rule, enacted in the final days of the Clinton administration, placed about 58 million acres of federal land off-limits to new road construction and other development.

Wyoming, joined by off-road vehicle enthusiasts, mining companies and other western states, argues the Clinton administration violated various federal laws as well as the Wilderness Act by rushing through the rulemaking process and creating a "de facto wilderness."

"The Forest Service did not comply with the law here," Harriet M. Hageman, a lawyer representing four-wheel drive vehicle and snowmobile enthusiasts, said.

Opponents of the lawsuit, including an unusual alliance of the federal government and environmental groups, argue the Clinton rules were properly enacted and established roadless areas unique from wilderness.

"This was not the sort of put up job that the state insists," said Jim Angell, an Earthjustice attorney representing environmental groups.

Noting the volumes of legal arguments and documents on a cart and in a box next to him, U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer said he would take the case under advisement but that he didn't expect a ruling anytime soon.

"I've got a lot of reading to do," he said.

In 2003, Brimmer ruled that the Clinton roadless rule was invalid nationwide. Brimmer said then that the Clinton administration had in effect established wilderness areas, and the law allows only Congress to do that.

Environmental groups appealed Brimmer's ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. But before the appeals court issued a decision, the Bush Administration released a new rule replacing the Clinton rule. Brimmer's ruling was eventually vacated.

The Clinton rule came back into effect again last fall when a federal magistrate in California rejected the Bush administration roadless rule and said the Clinton rules had to be followed.

The California ruling added another complication to an already complicated case.

Brimmer asked how a federal magistrate could effectively reinstate a roadless rule that he had found invalid.

Bob Nicholas, an assistant attorney general for Wyoming, said the California judge overstepped her authority and Brimmer had the power to invalidate the Clinton rule nationwide again.

He noted the California judge did not hear arguments or rule on the merits of the Clinton rule as Brimmer had and the order reinstating the Clinton rule was based more on a "political objective" than law.

However, Barclay Samford, a federal attorney representing the U.S. Forest Service, countered that if Brimmer struck down the Clinton rule the Forest Service would be faced with conflicting federal court orders.

"Two wrongs certainly don't make a right," Samford said.

Samford and Angell argued that if Brimmer did issue a ruling against the Clinton rule then it should be limited to just Wyoming and not nationwide.

They noted the California ruling was being appealed.

Samford said the federal government did not agree with the California judge's finding that the Bush administration's roadless rule was unconstitutional. The Bush rule gave each state more say in what forest areas in their states should be declared roadless.

Environmental groups back the California ruling.