A one-mile stretch of road in the Adirondacks was the subject of arguments Thursday before the state's highest court, which will decide whether that route can lawfully be opened for public snowmobile use after the state proposed a plan to do so three years ago.

A pair of environmental groups argued before the New York Court of Appeals that a section of state law, and a plan by a state agency, should inhibit public snowmobile use on the road.

The groups, Adirondack Wild and Protect the Adirondacks, were represented before the high court by Christopher Amato, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law group.

Part of the conflict presented to the Court of Appeals on Thursday was whether the road, which was previously owned by a paper company for more than a century, would be used more if the state opened it for public use, versus how it was used before.

That question was further complicated by the fact that the road runs through an area protected as "wild" under the state Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act, or Rivers Act. The environmental groups had argued that the designation should prevent the state from opening the road for public snowmobile use.

The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, they argued, also barred the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas regardless of how it was used before.

"The Rivers Act specifically prohibits the use of motor vehicles in wild river areas, just as the Master Plan does," Amato said.

There is an exception to that rule, the state claimed. Assistant Solicitor General Laura Etlinger argued that state law allows the road to be opened for public use, as long as it's not altered or expanded.

Because the road had been used for commercial use for decades by the paper company, and recreational use by others, opening the route for public snowmobiling would not result in greater use, Etlinger argued.

"The question is whether it was rational, and the answer is they're going from 12 months of heavy use—commercially and recreationally—to a limited period of use and a limited type of vehicles," Etlinger said.

Amato argued that regardless of how the road was trafficked in the past, the state was expanding use of the route because it was previously closed off to the public for snowmobiling. That was allowed for private individuals, but not anyone else.

"This is absolutely an expansion of use, because previously snowmobiling was limited to the landowner, its contractors," Amato said.

He also argued that the road's previous use may not even apply because of what they've perceived as a conflict between the Rivers Act and the Master Plan. The Rivers Act includes an exception for previous use, Amato said, but also directs the state to follow any other rules that require a more restrictive use of land.

In this case, he argued, the Master Plan should supersede that exception because it's more restrictive.

"Here, the most restrictive provision as it exists in the Rivers Act and the Master plan specifically prohibits motorized vehicles in wild river areas," Amato said.

The state has taken the position that there is no conflict to analyze between the Rivers Act and the Master Plan, instead saying that the latter regulation recognizes that the state Department of Environmental Conservation has authority independent of it to regulate the use of wild areas.

"When there's something in the Master Plan that addresses what would also be in the Rivers Act, DEC has primary authority under the Rivers Act," Etlinger said.

Associate Judge Eugene Fahey, during arguments, opined on how the Adirondacks are uniquely situated as a "crown jewel" of New York, and should therefore be afforded close scrutiny by the court over the state's decision, regardless of how much land is in question.

Fahey was skeptical of how the state could quantify the use prior to opening the road for public snowmobile use, versus when it was in private hands.

"The question is, when you say it's open to the public … and this is not going to be an expansion, isn't it your burden to say it's not going to be an expansion by pointing to some quantifiable report?" Fahey asked.

Etlinger said there wasn't a date comparison, per se, but that the state Department of Environmental Conservation did not predict expanded use of the route.

"I think the record does support it," Etlinger said. "DEC, on that record, could rationally determine there would not be an expansion of use."

A decision in the case from the Court of Appeals will likely be handed down in October.

READ MORE: