As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case is whether a plan to cut down trees in order to build snowmobile trails in the Adirondack Park violates the State Constitution’s “Forever Wild” Clause. In a 5–2 decision, the Court (Rivera, J.) held that the plan violates the Forever Wild Clause.
In the late nineteenth century, New Yorkers amended the State Constitution by adding the Forever Wild Clause, Article XIV, § 1, to respond to concerns that industry was destroying natural resources in the Adirondacks. The Clause requires that lands of the Forest Preserve—2.5 million acres of land, including land in the Adirondack park—“shall be forever kept as wild forest lands” and “shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”
Roughly a decade ago, the State unveiled a plan to build snowmobile trails in the Adirondack Park. The plan required destroying 25,000 trees (6,814 of which were at least three inches in diameter at breast height).
The majority concluded that the plan violated the Forever Wild Clause. In the majority’s view, “the violation of the prohibition against the destruction of timber is a violation of the ‘forever wild’ clause, because that prohibition [is] a means to the ultimate objective of protecting the forest as wilderness.” The majority appeared to recognize that trees may be removed in some instances, where doing so was for a “specific purpose” that would “benefit the overall public interest” and where the project is aimed at enhancing “access [to] and enjoyment of the Forest Preserve as a wild forest.” The specific purpose of the plan here, however, was to connect local communities, rather than to benefit the public at large. And the plan was primarily designed to provide access to and enjoyment of the Forest Preserve for snowmobiling, rather than as a forest.
Judge Stein, joined by Chief Judge DiFiore, dissented. The dissent noted that in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v. MacDonald, the Court had rejected reading the Forever Wild Clause to “preserve [the Forest Preserve] from the interference in any way by the hand of man.” Instead, the dissent explained, Macdonald held that “insubstantial cutting” of trees “to allow public use of the forest consistent with tis character as a wilderness is constitutional.” Here, the dissent believed the plan was constitutional because the roughly 6,000 trees to be cut were “spread out over the course of 27 miles,” and the purpose was to allow public use of the Forest Preserve. Indeed, the dissent observed, although the trails were intended primarily for snowmobiles, the trails could also be used for hiking.