(CN) - Conservationists in Oregon are crying foul over a potential land deal between a ski resort and the U.S. Forest Service on top of the iconic Mount Hood that they say violates the law and was made without public input.
Attorneys representing several conservation groups in Oregon argued on Wednesday that the U.S. District Court for Oregon should vacate a 2022 U.S. Forest Service decision to exchange land between the agency and the Mount Hood Meadows ski resort, located on the south side of the mountain, about 50 miles east of Portland.
Plaintiffs, which include the Sierra Club and Thrive Hood River, say the deal between the two parties is a blatant violation of congressional legislation that prevented any land development on the north side of the mountain, known as the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. They also say that the deal is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The land involves 763 acres land owned by the ski resort in the Cooper Spur portion of Mount Hood in exchange for about 107 acres of public land owned by the Forest Service called the Government Camp portion. But ultimately, those numbers were reduced to 604 acres and 67 acres, respectively.
"Meadows - for some business purpose that we don't know about - decided that they don't want to trade all the land on the north side and they get away with it," said attorney Jesse Buss, representing the plaintiffs. "That seems to be the arrangement. The Forest Service says their hands are tied because their business partner doesn't want to trade all the land."
Buss said the deal has been approved without any input from the public.
"Meadows says they can do what they want," Buss argued. "None of that is in the record. It's only post hoc in the briefing, and plaintiffs and the public in general didn't have the opportunity to show why there are other alternatives and here's why there is no necessity to reduce the land acreage."
Plaintiffs asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeff Armistead for summary judgment in their favor.
However, attorneys for the Forest Service filed their own cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing Congress gave them flexibility to exchange a smaller portion of the land if necessary, as amended in a 2018 legislative act. The land exchange did not need to be the maximum amount, the defendants claim.
They accused the conservation groups of attempting to shoehorn legal arguments into their complaint to stop the deal from going through.
"This couldn't be jammed down Meadows' throat," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Martin. "I think it's fair to say Meadows was theoretically interested in exchanging 760 acres, but there's problems with the valuation that prevented it. Then it becomes a question of what parcels is it willing to give up or not."
Martin and his co-counsel, Steve Odell, representing the ski resort, both said the two parties put considerable effort into appraising the land and coming to a satisfactory agreement.
"I think we need to respect what Meadows is willing to do and what the Forest Service is willing to take here," he said.
But Buss said this goes against the original intent of the 2009 Omnibus Act. Additionally, whether the agreement is satisfactory or not must be explained so that his clients can have time to respond, he said.
"We are talking about land here," said Buss. "Actual ownership and control of parcels that will control the future control of the mountain for decades, if not hundreds of years, from here on out. There need to be alternatives with analysis considering the different possibilities to satisfy the Omnibus Act."
The attorneys spent more than two hours arguing over the meanings of different subsections of legislative acts and federal policies. They also argued over the appraised values of the mountain parcels being exchanged.
The conservation groups originally filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service in 2022.
Armistead could toss the decision and send the land exchange back to the drawing board. The judge did not indicate how he would rule.
Source: Courthouse News Service
