Dayton, Charles, 1936-

Charles K. Dayton received a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College in 1961 and completed law school at the University of Michigan in 1964. He was a partner with the firm of Gray, Plant, Mooty & Anderson from 1970 to 1971, and then became legal director of the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) in 1971. Two years later he formed his own law firm with John Herman. The firm continued Dayton's association with MPIRG, and was also counsel for the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Dayton & Herman became known for its interest in environmental law after the firm's participation in two cases that attracted statewide interest: a suit challenging logging of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) in northern Minnesota, and the litigation concerning pollution of Lake Superior by the Reserve Mining Company. A detailed history of the BWCA cases follows this biographical sketch. Dayton & Herman was listed by the Council for Public Interest Law as the only public interest law firm in Minnesota during the late 1970s. Dayton also became adjunct professor of law at the University of Minnesota in 1980.

The history of the legal battle to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area began as early as 1926, when the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture designated the first roadless primitive area in northeastern Minnesota. Impetus for stringent preservation of this wilderness area, located in the Superior National Forest, was initiated with the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which further protected the BWCA. Unlike other wilderness areas covered by the act, the extent of timber harvesting and motorized travel in the BWCA was left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. This special status, which allowed lumber companies to harvest virgin timber in what was perceived by many to be the last great wilderness in the eastern United States, came under increasing attack from environmental groups, In November 1972, the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), represented by Charles K. Dayton, asked for a preliminary injunction that would ban further logging in the BWCA until the U.S. Forest Service released an environmental impact statement on existing timber contracts in the wilderness area. This action was based on the National Environmental Policy Act, which stated that an impact statement must be prepared for "major federal actions affecting the quality of the human environment." The case was tried in January 1973, as MPIRG vs. Earl L. Butz, et al (No. 4-72 Civ. 598) in U.S. District Court. During the trial, the plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction against logging in the wilderness area, based on the Wilderness Act of 1964 which required the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain the "primitive character" of the BWCA. On February 8, Judge Miles Lord agreed with the plaintiff's argument and ordered an injunction against logging on or near areas of virgin forest of the BWCA until the Forest Service released an environmental impact statement. Seven logging firms with contracts in the area appealed that decision in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court upheld the decision on June 10, 1974.

...