Opinion ID: 2605155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Massachusetts Approach

Text: In Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission, 350 Mass. 410, 215 N.E.2d 114 (1966), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concerned itself with the lease of 4,000 acres in Greylock Reservation to Mount Greylock Tramway Authority and an agreement between the tramway authority and a management corporation. The legislature created the Greylock Reservation Commission. The commission was authorized to acquire 10,000 acres to be known as the Greylock State Reservation and it was given certain powers of a park commission. In 1953 the legislature created the Mount Greylock Tramway Authority, and the Authority was empowered to construct and operate an aerial toll tramway and all appurtenances thereto, and to issue revenue bonds to pay the costs. The Commission was authorized to lease to the Authority any portion of Mount Greylock Reservation for a period of time not to exceed forty years. The Commission then leased to the Authority 4,000 acres, representing almost half the total reservation. From 1953 to 1964 the Authority was unable to borrow the necessary money to build the tramway. A joint venture was formed, American Resort Services, Inc., between an investment firm which was willing to underwrite the bonds and a construction firm. The Authority then entered into a management agreement with Resort employing Resort as its agent to manage the tramway and related facilities under the general supervision and at the expense of the Authority. Resort was to receive 40% of the net operating revenues. Private citizens brought suit under the public trust doctrine to declare the lease and the agreement invalid. The court began its opinion by stating that [t]he Greylock reservation, as rural park land, is not to `be diverted to another inconsistent public use without plain and explicit legislation to that end. The policy of the commonwealth has been to add to the common-law inviolability of parks express prohibition against encroachment.' 215 N.E.2d at 121 (citations omitted.) The court then concluded that the legislative authorization permitted the commission to lease only those portions of the reservation which might prove to be reasonably necessary to a project of permitted scope. In addressing the validity of the management agreement the court concluded that the broad delegation of power to Resort was in excess of the statutory grant, stating: This recreational scheme, in the profits of which Resort is to share, is to compete ... with private recreational ventures of similar character. The profit sharing feature and some aspects of the project itself strongly suggest a commercial enterprise. In addition to the absence of any clear or express statutory authorization of as broad a delegation of responsibility by the Authority as is given by the management agreement, we find no express grant to the Authority of power to permit use of public lands and of the Authority's borrowed funds for what seems, in part at least, a commercial venture for private profit. Id. at 126. In reaching this conclusion the court took into account that the act authorized a tramway, that this was to be a large ski development of a type usually undertaken by private developers, and most of the power of the Authority had been delegated to Resort. It was therefore very similar to a grant of public property to private developers for private profit. In the cases subsequent to Gould, the Massachusetts court again required a strong showing of direct legislative intent to alienate public trust resources before it would uphold such alienation. In Sacco v. Department of Public Works, 352 Mass. 670, 227 N.E.2d 478 (1967), and Robbins v. Department of Public Works, 355 Mass. 328, 244 N.E.2d 577 (1969), the court set out the standard to be met to show adequate legislative intent, holding the legislature must identify the land and there must appear in the legislation not only a statement of the new use but a statement or recital demonstrating legislative awareness of the existing public use. The Massachusetts approach has been explained by one noted author: [P]ublic officials are frequently subjected to intensive representations on behalf of interests seeking official concessions to support proposed enterprises. The concessions desired by those interests are often of limited visibility to the general public so that public sentiment is not aroused; but the importance of the grants to those who seek them may lead to extrarordinarily vigorous and persistent efforts. It is in these situations that public trust lands are likely to be put in jeopardy and that legislative watchfulness is likely to be at the lowest levels. To send such a case back for express legislative authority is to create through the courts an openness and visibility which is the public's principal protection against overreaching, but which is often absent in the routine political process. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich.L.Rev. 471, 495-96 (1970) (footnote omitted). We do not agree that public trust resources may only be alienated by express legislative mandates. Such a requirement would impose an undue burden on a legislature which at the present time meets only a few months each year. However, we do follow the substance of the Massachusetts approach  that public trust resources may only be alienated or impaired through open and visible actions, where the public is in fact informed of the proposed action and has substantial opportunity to respond to the proposed action before a final decision is made thereon. Moreover, decisions made by non-elected agencies rather than by the legislature itself will be subjected to closer scrutiny than will legislative decisionmaking. In the present case, this standard has been complied with. Notice of the proposed permit was published in the Coeur d'Alene press, and public hearings were held before the State Department of Lands. The hearings involved oral as well as written testimony. Not only was testimony received but documentary evidence such as maps and photographs were introduced. KEA also submitted a petition against the permit to the hearing examiner. In addition, this controversy did not remain confined to examination by the Department of Lands. Concerned citizens brought the permit application and their opposition to it to the attention of the Board of Land Directors which convened specifically to address the question of the Panhandle Yacht Club application. The Board, at the emergency meeting convened for this purpose, imposed a moratorium on the issuance of future permits until a local comprehensive plan with implementing ordinances was enacted or until a year had passed, whichever came first. The Board, however, specifically made the moratorium inapplicable to present applications, one of which was the Yacht Club's.