Opinion ID: 1239050
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Land management

Text: Weiss makes several interrelated arguments with regard to the land management provisions of the settlement agreement. First, he contends that the management regime is illegal because it allegedly does not require trust lands to be managed solely in the best interest of the beneficiaries. Weiss also asserts that the court erred by considering the not very concrete benefit of management of trust land by a special DNR unit. [24] Weiss argues that the settlement's management scheme is illegal because it provides that DNR shall manage mental health trust land under those provisions of law applicable to other state land. AS 38.05.801(b)(1). This argument is unconvincing. HB 201 explicitly makes this provision subject to the overall requirement that the lands be managed consistent with the trust principles imposed by the AMHEA. AS 38.05.801(a). In light of this express language, the trial court reasonably concluded that the settlement's management standard conforms with the requirements of the trust. Weiss also argues that the management provisions are illegal because they require that DNR's regulations address ... management for multiple use of trust land. We agree with the superior court, however, that when viewed in its entirety, there is actually no conflict in the statute between the multiple-use subsection and the subsections requiring maintenance of the trust land base and management for the benefit of the trust and long-term sustained yield of products from the land. As the superior court noted, multiple use can refer to multiple types of development as well as to combining recreation or preservation with development. [25] Moreover, recognition of the unique scenic, paleontological, and archeological values of trust lands is not necessarily incompatible with trust principles, even under the stringent rules governing school trust lands. National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Board of State Lands, 869 P.2d 909, 921 (Utah 1993). Weiss also takes issue with the superior court's appraisal of the value of the settlement's creation of a separate unit within DNR to manage trust lands. The superior court found the addition of a special unit to manage these lands to be an improvement over general management by DNR for several reasons. First, the land managers in the special unit will have a smaller amount of land per person to manage than those in DNR. This should allow managers to be proactive managers instead of passive managers. Second, the special unit members can be trained in the special rules applicable to trust management and will have to apply only those rules and those laws applicable to other state lands which do not conflict with trust management under the Enabling Act. Third, the individuals in the special unit may develop a sense of pride in their special charge. Even if, as Weiss asserts, the trial court's first point is not supported by evidence, the court's second and third points offer ample support for its conclusion that management by a specialized unit will probably be an improvement over the result of continued litigation. In summary, the program benefits at best offer a considerable advantage over continued litigation. At worst, they are as favorable as the likely product of continued litigation. Therefore, we hold that the superior court did not err in its appraisal of the settlement's provisions regarding the Trust Authority, the budgeting procedures, and land management. [26]