This is an appeal by citizens disenchanted with the State’s forestry management practices. They sued, claiming monetary damages for alleged losses caused by the State’s policy of permitting commercial harvesting of trees on state-owned property. The district court dismissed their petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.
I. Background.
Plaintiffs learned in 1993 that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its predecessor, the Iowa Conservation Commission, have been harvesting mature, healthy trees in Walnut Woods State Park, Ledges State Park, and Pikes Peak State Park. Further inquiry revealed that at least 2700 trees have been logged in Iowa’s state parks since 1977. Armed with this knowledge, plaintiffs commenced a class-action suit against the State under the Iowa Tort Claims Act. See Iowa Code ch. 669 (1995).
Plaintiffs’ petition does not seek to enjoin the State’s tree-harvesting practices. Rather it seeks money damages to compensate the plaintiffs, and all others who visit the State’s parks, for their personal loss of use and enjoyment of the logged trees. Plaintiffs base their suit on Iowa Code section 658.4. That statute provides:
For willfully injuring any timber, tree, or shrub on the land of another, or in the street or highway in front of another’s cultivated ground, yard, or city lot, or on the public grounds of any city, or any land held by the state for any purpose whatever, the perpetrator shall pay treble damages at the suit of any person entitled to protect or enjoy the property.
Iowa Code § 658.4.
The State moved to dismiss, claiming section 658.4 creates no private cause of action against the State for injury to trees grown in state parks. The district court sustained the motion, observing that the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act provides the exclusive *674 means of challenging the DNR’s forestry management practices. This appeal by plaintiffs followed.
II. Issues on Appeal and Scope of Review.
Plaintiffs contend the court read too narrowly the purpose of section 658.4 and, therefore, erred in its dismissal of their petition. We review such a claim for errors at law.
Venard v. Winter,
Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that their cause of action for damages finds support in the public trust doctrine.
See, e.g., State v. Sorensen,
III. Viability of Plaintiffs’ Claim Under Section 598.⅛.
At the heart of this controversy lies the question whether plaintiffs’ petition states a claim as defined in chapter 669, the Iowa Tort Claims Act. Pertinent to this suit, the Act permits private parties to recover money damages for the negligent or wrongful acts of state employees “where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such damage....” Iowa Code § 669.2(3)(a). The Act creates no new causes of action.
Engstrom v. State,
Before plaintiffs can recover in tort against the State or any other defendant, they must show a duty owed them by the wrongdoer and a violation of that duty. Id. at 315. Here plaintiffs claim the State’s duty to them arises under section 658.4. Arrogating to themselves the ownership of trees on public lands, they argue the statute permits them recovery against a “perpetrator” — in this case, the State — who willfully injures any timber on “their land.” See Iowa Code § 658.4.
Plaintiffs’ argument, though unquestionably sincere, cannot withstand close scrutiny. Section 658.4, contained in a chapter entitled “Waste and Trespass,” has throughout its long history been interpreted to furnish relief to property owners for damage by trespassers.
See Parker v. Parker,
The DNR is, by statute, delegated the duty to manage state parks. Iowa Code § 455A.2. Its power is exercised in accordance with policies established by a natural resources commission. See generally Iowa *675 Code § 455A.5. Consistent with this delegation of authority, DNR employees are specifically exempted from the law barring the removal, destruction, or injury of trees or other plant life on public lands. Iowa Code § 461A.41. Clearly these statutes contradict the novel interpretation of section 658.4 advanced by plaintiffs on this appeal.
Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded in oral argument that even if plaintiffs “enjoyed” trees grown on a neighbor’s land, plaintiffs would have no right to seek compensation for their neighbor’s willful destruction of their own trees. No recognized duty exists to support such a cause of action. So it is with the facts before us. Because the plaintiffs could not recover against a private landowner for the conduct complained of here, plaintiffs can sustain no cognizable claim against the State under section 669.2(3)(a) of the Tort Claims Act. Thus the district court correctly determined as a matter of law that the State’s ownership and management authority over publicly owned forests precludes a citizen’s suit for money damages against DNR employees carrying out their statutory mandate on state-owned lands.
AFFIRMED.