In the continuing legal battle over Red Rock Crossing, both the Sierra Club and Yavapai County filed Answering Briefs on June 30, 1999 in Division One, Arizona Court of Appeals.

        These submissions were in response to an Appeal Brief filed with the Court by Citizens for an Alternate Route (CFAR) on March 29, 1999.

        CFAR, arguing that Yavapai County has a mandatory duty to rebuild Red Rock Crossing, filed a Complaint for Special Action on April 24, 1998, attempting to force the County to act.

        The Complaint was heard by Presiding Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert D. Myers, who dismissed it on October 23, 1998.

        Judge Myers ruled Yavapai County’s duty to rebuild or replace the Crossing was discretionary and not compulsory.

        Predictably, CFAR appealed his decision and the case went to the Court of Appeals.

        This led to the latest round of filings, the Answering Briefs submitted by the Sierra Club and Yavapai County.

        At the end of each document, a summarizing statement was included.

        Reaffirming Sierra Club support for Judge Myer’s decision to dismiss CFAR’s case, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest attorney Jennifer Anderson wrote, "[It] should be upheld because CFAR failed to establish any mandatory duty on the part of Yavapai County to reconstruct Red Rock Crossing"

        Reviewing Yavapai County’s position, Deputy County Attorney M. Randolph Schurr stated, "The Plaintiffs [CFAR] have asked the Court for an order compelling the Defendants [Yavapai County] to do all things necessary to construct a crossing over Oak Creek at Red Rock Crossing. The suit is based in mandamus, which means that the Plaintiffs must establish a mandatory duty to do those things. The actions at issue are discretionary and not mandatory."

        "Therefore," he concluded, "the Defendants respectfully request that the ruling of the trial court be affirmed."

        The Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments to be heard on November 2, 1999.