| Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial March 16 , 2004 County’s Logging Appeal A Bad Idea APPEAL: County officials have a right to appeal recent court decision, but that doesn't make it a good approach. Some proponents of responsible logging in the Santa Cruz Mountains are decrying the county's decision last week to appeal an appellate court decision to the state Supreme Court.
The county is fighting to uphold zoning restrictions on where logging takes place in the Santa Cruz Mountains. An appellate court ruled last month that the county was overstepping its bounds.
Logging is regulated at the state level, even though counties are in charge of zoning restrictions. Logging groups had sued Santa Cruz County, arguing that the local zoning restrictions actually went further than appropriate. Plaintiffs said that the county was using zoning to actually regulate timber operations.
A Superior Court sided with the county, but the state Court of Appeals disagreed, and ruled that the county's zoning laws were too far-reaching.
Now the matter is going to the state Supreme Court. Like local timber interests, we would prefer that the county not continue the challenge. We agree with those from Big Creek Lumber Co. that all timber operations around the state should operate under the same rules.
However, we understand the differing opinion held by the county. We'd be dreaming to think that they'd lose a court case at the appellate level and then just give up. So we weren't surprised by the appeal.
Nevertheless, we predict that the Supreme Court won't change the appellate decision. The county's position is not a straightforward one. The county insists that its zoning rules do not intrude upon state guidelines. We think they do.
There's plenty of control over logging operations by the state Department of Forestry, the state Department of Fish and Game and other agencies.
Most local timber operations are well-run. Big Creek, for example, is nationally known for its care in timber operations. In fact, much of what they do actually improves the health of local forests.
We agree with the county that not all logging operations are as reliable. Nevertheless, county regulation would carry with it too many unknowns. Most opponents of logging are sincere in their views, but there are a number of those who oppose timber operations for emotional reasons more than scientific ones. They can successfully sway local regulators.
We think the state has acted wisely in retaining control over logging. The county has a right to this appeal; we don't think it will succeed. More on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisor's decision to appeal the Sixth Appellate Court decision: Link to Alfred Carlson's letter to the editor of the Santa Cruz Sentinel More on the recent Sixth District Court of Appeals decision: Link to the official Sixth Appellate Court Summary of Conclusions Link to complete Sixth Appellate Court decision Link to a February 19, 2004 Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial Link to a February 20, 2004 CCFA editorial Other recent attempts to disenfranchise landowners: Link to the coho recovery plan (see pages 7-101 through 7-113) Link to recent Water Quality Control Board regulations |
