Court: McKenna must appeal Okanogan PUD power line case
Maeyowa of People for Alternatives, Conservation & Education, said her group is watching closely. “Our hope is still that the PUD is going to come up with one of the alternatives that is more reasonable, and it can be a win-win,” she said.
OLYMPIA — The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the state Attorney General must appeal the condemnation of state land in the Methow Valley, as requested by Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark.
Goldmark and Attorney General Rob McKenna went head-to-head last summer over whether the state would appeal an Okanogan County Superior Court decision allowing the Okanogan County PUD to condemn a 12-mile long, 100-foot wide corridor of state land, now used for grazing.
The state Department of Natural Resources land, along with private land, was condemned to make way for a new transmission line from Twisp to Pateros — now in the works for 14 years, but repeatedly stopped by lawsuits.
The latest legal battle before the state’s highest court pitted two elected state officials against each other.
Goldmark — who is from Okanogan — contended that the utility should not be allowed to condemn state land, and wanted to appeal. McKenna’s office decided not to appeal, based on the likelihood of the appeal’s success, and on the case’s statewide impact.
In a press conference Thursday afternoon, McKenna said winning the case for the DNR could give others the ammunition to fight future condemnations sought by the state Department of Transportation.
“A far-reaching argument would have to be made in the appeal that could then be cited in condemnation cases by other state agencies,” he said.
However, he conceded, a state statute gives the Public Lands Commissioner specific authority to require the Attorney General’s office to represent it.
His office may appoint a special assistant attorney general — an outside private attorney — to appeal the case, said deputy attorney general Rob Costello.
McKenna said he does not think the ruling will impact which cases his office decides to pursue, or drop. “Disagreement of this type is exceedingly rare,” he said.
Indeed, Justice Charles W. Johnson, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, wrote, “We have never been squarely presented with an instance of the attorney general refusing to represent a state officer on an appeal.”
DNR spokesman Brian Flint said Goldmark believes that condemning the land is not in the best interests of the citizens of Washington.
The agency contends that the power line would vastly increase the risk of wildfire in the largely roadless area. In addition, the condemned land along with several roads needed to maintain the powerline that would cross DNR land would reduce the amount of grazing land, and therefore income that the state gets for leasing the property.
The larger issue, Flint said, is that the case sets a precedent allowing a utility to take state land. “If a local government can condemn state-protected land, and change its use, that would have a potentially devastating impact across the state on our ability to manage lands for our trust,” he said.
Okanogan County PUD’s general manager John Grubich did not return a phone call, but wrote in an email that the utility is ready to defend its right to condemn the property in court. “The PUD commissioners do not take this authority lightly and chose to exercise their eminent domain authority only after all reasonable attempts to secure an easement from DNR across state lands failed,” it stated.
Opponents of the transmission line — who have fought for an alternative route since 1997 — welcomed the court’s decision. Maeyowa — she goes by only one name — a founder of People for Alternatives, Conservation & Education, said her group is not directly involved in the battle between the Lands Commissioner and Attorney General, but is watching closely.
“In light of the protest of representation by the Attorney General, I’m just praying there’s going to be an honest effort made in the appeal on behalf of the Commissioner (Goldmark),” she said.
She said her group tried to get the transmission line moved to a better location, but exhausted its current court options.
“Our hope is still that the PUD is going to come up with one of the alternatives that is more reasonable, and it can be a win-win,” she said.
