Strawberry Water Users Association v. United States, 109f4th1287

In 2018, lightning started the Bald Mountain and Pole Creek wildfires on U.S. Forest Service land in Utah.
The Forest Service initially decided to monitor and contain, not suppress, the fires, anticipating ecological benefits and low risk of spread.
Unexpected high winds caused both fires to grow rapidly, eventually burning nearly 100,000 acres, including private property.
Plaintiff Strawberry Water Users Association (SWUA) sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for alleged wildfire mismanagement.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, citing the FTCA discretionary-function exception.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding the exception applied to the Forest Service’s decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discretionary-function exception applies to USFS wildfire management	Rayonier forecloses the exception for wildfire negligence; USFS lacked statutory authority for its chosen strategy	USFS acted within statutory discretion; fire management decisions are policy-based and discretionary	Exception applies because actions were discretionary and policy-based
Whether violation of a specific, mandatory directive removes discretion	Issuing the Red/Green Map without NEPA review stripped USFS of discretion	NEPA imposes a procedural duty, not a specific mandate as to fire response	No specific, mandatory directive required immediate fire suppression—discretion retained
Statutory scope of Forest Service fire management authority	USFS cannot impose managed burns risking private lands; Red/Green Map evidence of intent to spread fires	Statutes authorize limited use of fire for resource management, and Red/Green Map is only guidance	USFS acted within statutory authority; no intent to burn private property established
Availability of relief via FTCA for alleged NEPA violations	NEPA violations void discretion, allowing FTCA liability	NEPA provides procedural not substantive limits; no FTCA private right of action for NEPA claims	NEPA does not limit wildfire response discretion nor confer FTCA action

Rayonier Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 315 (holds USFS negligence in fire management can be covered by FTCA, but not addressing discretionary-function exception)
United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797 (defining scope of FTCA discretionary-function exception)
Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (establishing the two-part test for the discretionary-function exception)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (clarifying that the policy analysis for the exception is objective)