## Facts

- Utah entered the Union under a land-grant arrangement that conveyed designated sections as school-trust lands to be managed to generate revenue for public schools.
- Cotter Corporation leased a Utah school-trust parcel (section 36) for mineral development; the parcel was surrounded by federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
- Cotter also held unpatented mining claims on adjacent federal lands.
- To reach the lease and claims, Cotter constructed access roads across BLM lands without prior notice to or approval from BLM.
- While conducting FLPMA wilderness review, BLM identified the surrounding federal lands as having wilderness characteristics and designated them as a wilderness study area (WSA).
- After discovering the road construction, BLM ordered Cotter to stop road building and other surface-disturbing activities, asserting authority to prevent impairment of wilderness characteristics under FLPMA.
- The United States sued Cotter for injunctive relief, and a temporary restraining order issued.
- Utah intervened, asserting that federal restrictions effectively denied access to state trust lands, contrary to the statehood land-grant compact and Utah’s duties as trustee; Utah sought summary judgment.
- The district court consolidated the actions and resolved them through a combined decree and injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether federal management of surrounding public lands under FLPMA may deny or effectively prevent reasonable access to Utah’s school-trust lands granted at statehood.
2. Whether BLM may prohibit or severely restrict access to valid unpatented mining claims within a WSA to protect wilderness characteristics.
3. What management standard governs activities in a WSA under FLPMA § 603(c), including whether post-1976 uses are subject to a strict non-impairment standard.
4. Whether agency action that renders state trust lands or valid mining claims practically unusable raises compact-impairment or takings concerns.

## Decision

- The court held Utah, as trustee, has a right of reasonable access to its school-trust lands necessary to carry out the land-grant purposes; Cotter, as lessee, shared that right.
- The court held Cotter had a right of reasonable access to its valid unpatented mining claims, including within a WSA, and could not be permanently deprived of access.
- The court ruled access rights are subject to reasonable federal regulation to protect wilderness characteristics and to require mitigation measures, including reclamation.
- Interpreting FLPMA § 603(c), the court applied a dual approach: existing uses as of October 21, 1976 could continue subject to wilderness-protection conditions, while uses initiated after that date were subject to the WSA non-impairment mandate rather than only the general “unnecessary or undue degradation” standard.
- The court rejected both total federal exclusion of access and unfettered road construction, and entered injunctive relief requiring accommodation through regulated access and further administrative review.

## Legal Principles

- Statehood school-land grants create enforceable trust purposes, implying a right to reasonable access across surrounding federal lands; federal regulation may not nullify the economic utility of the granted lands by denying all access.
- Valid unpatented mining claims include a right of reasonable access, but not a right to a particular route or unrestricted surface disturbance; agencies may impose location, timing, and reclamation conditions.
- Under FLPMA § 603(c), WSAs are managed to avoid impairment of wilderness suitability during the review period, while allowing continuation of pre-existing uses; post-October 21, 1976 activities may be subject to stricter non-impairment limits.
- General public-lands degradation standards do not displace the more specific WSA wilderness management directive; both operate with the specific WSA mandate controlling in case of conflict.
- Remedies in WSA access disputes may require accommodation: regulated access that respects both wilderness protection duties and protected state and private interests.

## Conclusion

The court required an accommodation between FLPMA’s WSA wilderness-protection mandate and Utah’s compact-based trust obligations and Cotter’s valid mining-related interests, holding that reasonable access could not be permanently denied but could be tightly regulated to prevent wilderness impairment and to require reclamation.


State of Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 995 (D. Utah 1979)