Red Rock Crossing Oral Arguments Heard by Court of Appeals

        On November 2, 1999, arguments for and against the mandatory rebuilding of Red Rock Crossing were presented before the Arizona Court of Appeals.

        Citizens for an Alternate Route (CFAR) originally filed suit against Yavapai County on April 24, 1998, claiming it was required by law to replace the low-water concrete crossing originally built in the 1930’s and washed out by floods in 1978.

        Subsequently, on October 23, 1998, Maricopa County Presiding Superior Court Judge Robert D. Myers dismissed CFAR’s lawsuit. He concluded CFAR had failed to demonstrate that Yavapai County was required by law to rebuild or replace the crossing.

        CFAR disagreed with his decision, filing an appeal brief with the Arizona Court of Appeals on March 29, 1999.

        Both the Sierra Club and Yavapai County filed answering briefs on June 30, 1999.

        On October 14, 1999, the Sedona Medical Center Foundation Board attempted to submit an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on behalf of CFAR. The City of Sedona filed a similar amicus brief on October 19, 1999. Both briefs argued for replacing the crossing, citing alleged health and safety issues and the need for an alternate route into Sedona from the Village of Oak Creek to relieve potential traffic congestion.

        The Sierra Club objected to these briefs on the grounds they were untimely and irrelevant. Untimely, because they were submitted 6 ½ months after CFAR’s appeal brief; irrelevant, since they introduced topics beyond the scope of the issue to be resolved by the Court of Appeals.

        Representing the Sierra Club, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest staff attorney Jennifer B. Anderson wrote, "[T]he central issue raised is whether Yavapai County has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to build a bridge or other vehicular crossing over Red Rock Crossing." She also pointed out that both the Medical Center Foundation and City of Sedona "waited until the eleventh hour to file a brief that has no relevance to the issues raised in this appeal."

        Ultimately, the Court ended up accepting Sedona’s amicus brief while rejecting the one submitted by the Medical Center.

        The proceedings began promptly at 11:00 a.m. and were scheduled to last one hour. The Court of Appeals panel was composed of Judges Garbarino, Thompson and Sult.

        Each side was initially given 20 minutes to summarize its arguments and answer questions from the judges.

        Attorney Cameron Artigue, representing CFAR, was first. He claimed Yavapai County had "named and maintained it [Red Rock Crossing] as a low-water crossing for 40 years" and therefore had a duty to repair or replace it.

        Yavapai County Deputy Attorney M. Randolph Schurr spoke next. He explained there was "no documented evidence of County maintenance offered by CFAR." While he speculated that a low-water crossing might have been appropriate for the needs of local residents 20 years ago, he wondered if a replacement would now create serious liability exposure for Yavapai County. He suggested it might not be in the interest of public safety to restore anything at the site. He raised questions as to whether or not the County even had the ability to build there because Red Rock Crossing is now under U. S. Forest Service jurisdiction. Finally, Schurr reiterated Yavapai County’s position that the duty to replace or repair any bridge or low-water crossing within its borders is discretionary and not mandatory.

        Jennifer B. Anderson was the last to speak. Should the Appeals Court return the case to Superior Court for trial she said the Sierra Club also "would strongly dispute that Red Rock Crossing is [part of] a public highway." Additionally, Anderson pointed out, CFAR’s complaint made no mention of an "abuse of discretion" or "arbitrary or capricious action" on the part of Yavapai County. Therefore, unless CFAR could establish a mandatory duty to rebuild the crossing, its lawsuit must fail.

        Sedona City Attorney Michael B. Goimarac was also in attendance, but not allowed to submit an oral argument.

        The other issue before the Court involved the Sierra Club’s legal standing in the proceedings.

        Judge Myers had ruled the Sierra Club did not meet the criteria for legal standing as an intervenor, but could participate as a "friend of the court." He left the door open, however, saying it could reapply for intervenor status if the Club concluded Yavapai County was not representing its interests.

        Anderson presented arguments against Myers’ decision, reiterating that "Sierra Club members use and enjoy Red Rock Crossing on a regular basis." She explained the "environmental, recreational and aesthetic interests of its members are affected" by the intrusion of any sort of bridge at the Crossing. "Sierra Club interests are not represented by the County," she added. "They just want to preserve discretion and save money. The County never put forth any environmental interests in Red Rock Crossing"

        Artigue disagreed, saying that "caring deeply and passionately is not enough for intervention." He urged the Court to uphold Judge Myers’ ruling.

        The Court of Appeals adjourned at high noon, with the judges announcing they would give their decision at a later date.

        "A ruling could be returned within two months or it might take up to a year," explained Anderson. "It depends on the Court’s workload."

        Regardless of the Court of Appeals decision, either side could seek further review by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Back to: The Proposal

Back to:  Significant Events