SUWA ruling appropriate

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's contention that environmental groups can sue the federal government to better protect Utah wilderness study areas from off-highway vehicles.

Ruling on behalf of SUWA would have essentially inserted the court into the daily operations of the Bureau of Land Management, which is clearly a responsibility of the executive branch of government. The high court's ruling, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, plainly declared that federal law "does not contemplate such pervasive federal-court oversight."

While the high court ruled that federal judges should not manage the nation's public lands, SUWA raises legitimate issues about the damage posed by off-highway vehicles on vulnerable lands. We concur with the Supreme Court that the BLM has broad discretionary powers over its land-use plans and policies but question whether the agency has sufficient resources to carry out its ever-expanding responsibilities as public lands stewards. However, those issues are best addressed by the Department of Interior, which oversees the BLM, and Congress, which holds the purse strings.

Still, the Supreme Court ruling upheld the principle that federal lands managers have the expertise and knowledge to manage public lands on a day-to-day basis without the threat of litigation hanging over their heads. The nature of its work suggests that one advocacy group or another will be unhappy with BLM policies and practices regardless what it does. It is no small feat to attempt to address the concerns of constituent groups and land users in proper context with the agency's main mission to oversee the public's lands.

SUWA may still pursue some of the issues raised in the lawsuit that, in part, challenged whether the BLM follows its own regulation with respect to off-highway vehicles. That issue could be litigated in U.S. District Court in Utah.

Although the court's ruling addresses the court overseeing a federal agency, it does not escape notice that a federal court continues to oversee portions of Utah's child welfare practices and has indicated it plans to continue to do so for the foreseeable future under the David C. v. Leavitt settlement agreement.

While federal court oversight of child welfare issues has driven many of the needed reforms, after a decade of oversight it behooves the respective players to contemplate the appropriate role of the judicial branch of government in the affairs of the executive branch. The high court's opinion on judicial oversight of the BLM provides food for thought with respect to the separation of powers and in the case of the federal court overseeing the Division of Child and Family Service's case, an important state's rights issue.