tidwell-brief

From the time the Boundary County decision was sent to the Pacific Northwest Counties
through today, there are units of local government which believe that it is unconstitutional to
insist on intergovernmental coordination. In Montana, the first response of the Forest Service to
a request for coordination by the Glen Lake Irrigation District, clearly a unit of local government
under Montana law, was that coordination violated the supremacy clause. The Service relied on
an old opinion of the Montana Attorney General that focused on the Boundary County case. The
same response was made to the request for coordination by Fremont County in Wyoming. In
each case, the local government explained the difference between the county supremacy concept
and coordination. Such explanation should not have been necessary---the Service’s own
Planning Rules spelled out the meaning of coordination. So, I have to believe that in each case
the Service was simply bluffing in an attempt to avoid what the law requires.
As I pointed out at the Andrus Conference on Public Lands and Public Policy in the Spring 2010
Symposium at Boise State University, over the years the BLM has begun to lessen its resistance
to coordination while the Forest Service continues to resist complying with the law. The position
of some higher and mid management of the Service is ironic in view of the clarity of the
Secretary’s instructions in the 1982 Planning Rules.
Some Forest Service personnel are willing to comply with the law. In Custer County, Idaho,
Frank Guzman, Supervisor of the Challis-Salmon Forests has agreed to coordinate with the
County Commissioners without threat of lawsuit. He promptly responded to a County letter
requesting coordination, met in a very successful and amiable first meeting and readily scheduled
a second. In Wisconsin, in the Forest, the Supervisor readily agreed to coordinate with the
towns of
In Wrangle Alaska, the District Ranger was fully open to the coordination process upon the first
request from the Borough Assembly. In Modoc County, California, the Supervisor of the Modoc
Forest and the Ranger have worked coordinately with the County Supervisors for nearly two
decades.
But, in California, the Supervisor of the Trinity-Shasta Forests Sharon Heywood has steadfastly
resisted complying with the law; and her violations are backed apparently by Randy Moore, the
Regional Forester. From Siskyeu County in the North through Shasta County Supervisors are
ready to file lawsuits to force compliance. The waste of time and money on such lawsuits is an
absolute shame in view of the clear mandate of Congress that was designed to prevent such
waste.
22 | P a g e