The February 2000 issue of the Environmental Law Reporter (ELR) carried an Article by Deputy Secretary of the Interior David J. Hayes relating the dramatic negotiations that led to the settlement of the Headwaters controversy, whereby the federal government agreed to buy the Pacific Lumber Company's (PALCO's) Headwaters Forest, a 7,500-acre tract of old growth redwood trees, in order to preserve it as a national park. Though I was one of the lawyers for PALCO, and thus my perspective of this affair understandably differs from Mr. Hayes' perspective, I must at the outset agree with his bottom line that in terms of ultimate outcome, this was a "win-win" transaction. The public gained a major, environmentally important asset and PALCO received the protection of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the government to pay just compensation for private property it acquires for public purposes.

But this note of agreement falls short of ending the matter. Any telling of the Headwaters story must also take note of the "dark side" of this affair, particularly the astonishing tone of the public debate that preceded the settlement. After all, what was involved here was a land purchase, something that the government does routinely. No doubt, preservation of the Headwaters old growth redwood grove was important, but no more so than the creation of the National Redwood Park in 1968. Yet, for all the constructiveness of the Headwaters deal, this controversy implicates a saga of mendacity in public discourse that—with the eager cooperation of the press—succeeded in purveying a false picture of these events to the American public.