The Washington Supreme Court has been invited to change how the Department of Natural Resources manages state lands, deemphasizing logging and elevating recreation, wildlife and climate.

In a case to be heard Oct. 21, Conservation Northwest and other environmental groups contend DNR acts “like a private timber company,” ignoring a constitutional duty to manage land for “all the people.”

DNR and the timber companies, rural counties and rural schools that benefit from state timber sales are asking the court to reject Conservation Northwest’s reading of the state constitution.

They say the suit seeks to discard a 132-year-old mandate to generate revenue for schools and rural services and replace it with a vaguely defined “public interest.”

Conservation Northwest policy director Paula Swedeen said Friday the lawsuit stems from decades of frustration over how DNR manages timberland.

Conservation Northwest has goals, such as less logging in wildlife habitat and older forests, but doesn’t believe that will mean eliminating logging or hurting rural communities, she said.

“We’re not walking into this lawsuit without thinking of the broader social and economic impacts,” Swedeen said.

Critics of the lawsuit disagree. In an amicus brief, the Washington Council of Machinists said that if Conservation Northwest wins, jobs will be lost and forests turned into “theme parks for the affluent.”

Meanwhile, climate activists have rallied to support Conservation Northwest’s lawsuit, with one group suggesting that grazing and agriculture on DNR land contribute to climate change.

DNR manages 2.9 million acres of trust lands. Congress granted land when Washington became a state in 1889. Also, during the Depression, the state received tax-delinquent timberland from counties.

The state constitution says the land is held in trust for “all the people.” DNR argues there is nothing to suggest the framers of the state constitution saw any conflict with the congressional act.

Timber sales account for most of the money generated by the land, though DNR leases 1.1 million acres for grazing and farming, too. Some grazing occurs on forestlands.

In amicus filings, climate activists suggest DNR should manage land to maximize carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gases.

Swedeen said Conservation Northwest doesn’t see “the lawsuit as a cudgel to drive farmers and ranchers off their leases at all.”

Farmers and ranchers could have their claims to DNR leases strengthened, she said. “There’s no room now for a local community to say, ‘This land is important to our culture, important to our ranching industry.’”

The lawsuit has raised the expectations of some environmentalists. An environmental coalition told the court that “resource extraction and dominion over nature must yield.”

The Association of Washington Business, Washington State Association of Counties, Washington State School Directors Association and Skagit County have filed amicus briefs arguing against the lawsuit.

The Washington Forest Protection Association said in its brief that its members rely on a steady supply of timber from state lands, especially since the listing of the spotted owl as a threatened species caused much of the federal timberland in the state to be set aside as habitat three decades ago.

The Washington Environmental Council and Olympic Forest Coalition joined Conservation Northwest in filing the lawsuit. A Thurston County judge dismissed the suit, but the Supreme Court agreed to take up the constitutional issue.