Opinion ID: 2630128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: npca has standing to challenge the adequacy of the mcconkie appraisal

Text: ¶ 17 We first determine whether NPCA has standing to raise its challenges to the SITLA Director's decision to proceed with the exchange of section 16. On appeal, NPCA raises two challenges to the director's decision. First, it asserts that the exchange is invalid because SITLA violated its trust obligations by approving the exchange of section 16 even though section 16 constituted inadequate consideration for the lands Garfield County conveyed in exchange. Second, it challenges whether the McConkie Appraisal satisfies the requirements of our NPCA I remand. We must determine whether NPCA has standing to bring each of these challenges. ¶ 18 We have recognized that parties may obtain standing under either the traditional or an alternative test. [18] In NPCA I, we analyzed NPCA's standing solely under the alternative test, [19] which requires that a party prove that it is an appropriate party to raise an issue of significant public importance. [20] We concluded that NPCA's challenges to the exchange of section 16 raised issues of great public importance regarding the administration of school trust lands and that NPCA, based on its interest and expertise, was an appropriate party to present these issues for judicial resolution. [21] Because this case grows out of our decision in NPCA I and challenges the same conveyance for which we found alternative standing in that case, we see no reason why our determination that NPCA had standing to challenge the exchange of section 16 in NPCA I does not apply to its challenges in this case. ¶ 19 SITLA argues that the issue of public importance justifying our finding of alternative standing in NPCA I is not implicated by NPCA's challenges in this case. Specifically, SITLA contends that the sole issue justifying alternative standing in NPCA I was whether the state was required to give priority to unique scenic, recreational, archaeological, and paleontological values in administering school trust lands. [22] SITLA asserts that this court, in NPCA I, fully resolved the policy issues before it and therefore no such significant policy issues are present on remand. ¶ 20 We disagree. In NPCA I, we reached the merits of NPCA's claims that SITLA breached its fiduciary duties by approving the exchange based on an unreliable appraisal. [23] And although NPCA's claims in this case are somewhat refined given our resolution of NPCA I, the essence of NPCA's challenges in this case is the same. Accordingly, our grant of standing in NPCA I is fully determinative of the standing issue in this case. We now turn to the merits of NPCA's claims.