83 



and loans. Similarly, the federal timber sale program was 

 designed to supply the raw material for domestic housing needs 

 through the timber purchasers. 



while the Forest Service has not, to my knowledge, used 

 Che unmistakability doctrine as a defense in any pending timber 

 sale contract dispute, the Winstar decision should dispel any 

 thoughts of doing so. Clearly, compensating timber purchasers 

 for the reduction or elimination of its contracted for timber 

 would not preclude the government from exercising its authority 

 to regulate activities on the national forests. Such regulation 

 does not implicate the exercise of the taxing power or other 

 unique governmental power. Rather, regulation of timber sales is 

 more akin to supply contracts and as the Supreme Court stated, 

 "no one would seriously contend that enforcement of humdrum 

 supply contracts might be subject to the unmistakability 

 doctrine." Id. at *71. As in Winstar , awarding damages for 

 breach would not limit the government's regulatory power, albeit, 

 it would require the government to pay for the consequences of 

 its regulation. 



Likewise, the sovereign acts doctrine also does not 

 apply to timber salee reg-ulation. The actions of the Forest 

 Service in "screening" existing timber sales or imposing buffer 

 Strips in which harvest cannot occur are not "public and general" 

 acts. Specifically, given the Winataj: decision, any past 

 statements by Congress to assert the sovereign acts doctrine co 

 avoid contract damages in timber sale cases Is likely to fail. 



-5- S»H\swhk7796 



