Friends of Great Salt Lake v. Utah Department of Natural Resources
2017 UT 15
Utah2017Background
- In 1996–2000 the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands adopted a Mineral Leasing Plan and a 2000 Comprehensive Management Plan for the Great Salt Lake; areas were zoned, and the disputed acreage was in an "Open" leasing zone.
- In Feb 2007 Great Salt Lake Minerals Corp. nominated ~23,000 acres for lease; the Division solicited comments, accepted competitive bids, and in July 2007 issued a record of decision granting the lease.
- Friends of Great Salt Lake (and allied groups) sought administrative relief in three forms: a petition for consistency review, a request for agency action (asking the Division to redo or undertake site-specific analysis), and a petition for an agency declaratory order; the Division and Department denied all three and stayed execution briefly, then executed the lease.
- Friends appealed to district court, sought to amend its complaint to add constitutional and public-trust claims, and litigated challenges to denials (including a request to amend the 2000 plan); the district court upheld most agency rulings, denied leave to add unpreserved constitutional claims, and later dismissed a remaining claim as moot after new plans supplanted the 2000 plan.
- On direct appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, the Court affirmed most rulings but reversed narrowly: it held the Division was required, under the 2007 Administrative Code, to initiate site-specific planning when it received the lease application/identified commercial gain, and remanded for the Department to determine appropriate remedy for failing to perform that site-specific planning. The Court limited Friends’ standing to challenge only the Division’s refusal to perform site-specific planning, not the merits of lease approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division was required to perform site-specific planning when it received the lease application or identified an opportunity for commercial gain | Rule 652-90-300(2) mandates site-specific planning upon an application for sovereign land use or identification of commercial opportunity; Division therefore had to perform it | Prior comprehensive/resource plans and the designation of adjudications as informal mean no further site-specific planning was required | Held: Division was required to initiate site-specific planning under the 2007 rules; rule text and structure support mandatory planning despite existing plans |
| Whether Friends had statutory standing to seek consistency review of the record of decision | Friends contends the record of decision necessarily involved site-specific planning and thus it (as an aggrieved party) can seek consistency review | Division/Department and district court: the record of decision was an informal adjudication and Friends was not a party, so it lacked statutory standing to challenge the lease | Held: Limited standing. Friends lacks standing to challenge the lease adjudication itself but has standing to challenge the Division’s final decision that no site-specific planning was required (i.e., limited remand on that narrow issue) |
| Whether Friends’ request for agency action could relitigate or intervene in the informal adjudication | Friends sought an agency action to force reanalysis/site-specific planning | Division/Department: UAPA and agency rules prohibit intervention in informal adjudications and limit the types of agency actions that outsiders may initiate | Held: Denied. Request for agency action was an impermissible collateral attack not authorized by the applicable agency law |
| Whether the agency should issue a declaratory order on public-trust/planning obligations | Friends sought a declaratory order that the Division violated public-trust and planning duties | Division/Department: issuing such an order would prejudice the Corporation, relied on disputed facts, and the lease was not an executed contract; UAPA and agency rules bar issuance | Held: Denied. Multiple grounds independently fatal (prejudice to necessary party without consent; disputed facts; not an executed contract) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis–Hall Consultants v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 379 P.3d 1270 (Utah 2016) (agency regulatory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Friends of Great Salt Lake v. Dep’t of Nat. Res. (Friends I), 230 P.3d 1014 (Utah 2010) (prior decision about exhaustion and extraordinary relief)
- VCS, Inc. v. Utah Cmty. Bank, 293 P.3d 290 (Utah 2012) (canon preserving independent meaning of regulatory provisions)
- Taylor-West Weber Water Improvement Dist. v. Olds, 224 P.3d 709 (Utah 2009) (issues not raised administratively may be waived in judicial review)
- Nebeker v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 34 P.3d 180 (Utah 2001) (constitutional claims must be raised before the agency initially)
- Waddoups v. Noorda, 321 P.3d 1108 (Utah 2013) (rejecting retroactive application of rules as mere clarification)
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 289 P.3d 502 (Utah 2012) (extraordinary writs are discretionary and not a remedy for ordinary appellate errors)