CONSERVATION CORNER WHAT DOES SIERRA CLUB VS. MORTON MEAN FOR US TODAY? by Mike McCloskey and John Rettig
I
t was 50 years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a very important decision on a case that still reverberates today in conservation circles, Sierra Club vs. Morton. Yet, it seems to be little known and not often cited as one of the landmark rulings from this era To be clear, it wasn't the decision itself that we commemorate—that was marked off as a loss for conservation at that time, after all. Rather, it was a dissenting opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas that had significant long-term consequences for conservation organizations, and for which we know and remember this case today. What was at stake? The Mineral King Valley in the Sierra Nevada mountains, just north of the main body of Sequoia National Park, was the site of a giant ski resort proposed by the Walt Disney Company in 1965. The U.S. Forest Service asked Disney to build it, with the state of California helping them. At one time, this project would have accommodated 20,000 people each day. It would have had a huge, harmful impact on a small, sensitive area, and would have required an access roadway to be built through a part of Sequoia National Park. Early on, the Sierra Club sought a preliminary injunction to stop development, doing so in the District Court in San Francisco, which quickly granted it. But the victory was short-lived, as the government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the ruling—holding that the Club failed to establish standing (the right to initiate a lawsuit) by claiming damage to its interests. Clearly, the Forest Service and Disney had pushed the Ninth Circuit Court appeal. But the Sierra Club didn't give up. It, in turn, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal. However, after oral arguments, the Supreme Court also ruled against the Sierra Club. By a narrow margin, it disposed of the case on the same issue of standing. However, the
14 MAZAMAS
court said the Sierra Club could amend its complaint to establish its standing, which it then did. Plus, the injunction had always remained in force. In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice William O. Douglas wrote his famous dissent asserting that "trees should have standing," as should their friends such as the Sierra Club. After all, courts had long granted standing to inanimate objects such as ships, churches, and corporations. Why not to objects of nature and their friends? In its ruling, the Supreme Court also said that those filing in federal courts need not have a financial interest at stake, that they could instead have a non-financial interest, even a cause. This ruling opened the way for all sorts of cause organizations to file cases in federal courts and encouraged state courts to do likewise. By this time, Congress had passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which required federal agencies pursuing major projects to write an environmental impact statement (an EIS). In its re-filed suit, the Sierra Club now demanded that the Forest Service write such an EIS, which it finally did. The proposed ski resort had now become inordinately expensive and damaging, and the Sierra Club had managed to change the politics. The state backed out of building a new access road, and congressmen, governors, and presidents now opposed it. Even a new congressman from the locality now opposed the project and backed adding Mineral King Valley to Sequoia National Park. He persuaded Congress to pass his bill and President Carter to sign it.
Michael McCloskey’s Recollections We now join Michael McCloskey in a first-hand account interview about this case. Mike was then the newly installed Executive Director of the national Sierra Club, and vividly recalls what was going on at that time in the nation, in California, and within the ranks of the Sierra Club. In retirement, he has written several books related to the history of conservation activities. Among them are In the Thick of It, Conserving Oregon's Environment, and A Glimpse into History. Interviewer: Can you address why the type of legal actions taken by Sierra Club—both the injunction and also the U.S. Supreme Court case—were so unusual for their time? McCloskey: Prior to the case of the Sierra Club v. Morton, the filer needed to have a financial interest at stake in the case. Most nonprofits could not pass that hurdle. Few legal defense funds existed to help them. Most advisors felt that those filing such cases had less than a ten percent chance of prevailing. I: What was the financial situation and membership of the Sierra Club at the time? Was the focus on activities or advocacy, was the membership split, and were you always certain you would be able to carry this action through? M: When the Sierra Club filed its case to stop the Disney resort in 1969, it had about 100,000 members. Its net worth was near zero, and it had mixed views about the
continued on next page
