Term: 2011
Docket: 10-218
Ppl Montana, Llc, Petitioner v. Montana
- Pro
10-218 PPL MONTANA, LLC V. MONTANA DECISION BELOW: 229 P.3d 421 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 6/20/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Montana Supreme Court held on a summary judgment record that the State of Montana owns the riverbeds under more than 500 miles of river, including the riverbeds under multiple hydropower facilities on the upper Missouri, Madison, and Clark Fork rivers. This came as quite a shock, because for more than a century the riverbeds beneath those facilities have been treated as owned by private parties or the federal government. In reaching this result, the lower court concluded that the rivers were navigable when Montana joined the Union in 1889 and, therefore, that Montana held title to the riverbeds. The court upheld summary judgment for the State, notwithstanding a prior federal court decree, as well as 500 pages of expert testimony and exhibits disputing Montana's claim to title, establishing that the relevant sections of the rivers were not navigable at statehood. The consequences are draconian: The court below held that the State is entitled to collect tens of millions in retroactive back rent and millions more in future payments from the owners of the hydropower facilities. The questions presented are: 1. Does the constitutional test for determining whether a section of a river is navigable for title purposes require a trial court to determine, based on evidence, whether the relevant stretch of the river was navigable at the time the State joined the Union as directed by United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64 (1931), or may the court simply deem the river as a whole generally navigable based on evidence of present-day recreational use, with the question "very liberally construed" in the State's favor? 2. When a hydropower project is licensed under the Federal Power Act, a process that includes an economic analysis of the project and solicits state input, and the hydropower producer has obtained easements from private parties and paid substantial rents to the federal government on the understanding that the riverbeds under the hydropower facilities are owned by those private parties or the federal government, is a State's attempt retroactively to claim title and impose tens of millions of back and future rent obligations for use of the riverbeds preempted? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: DA 08-0506
In the case of PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of PPL Montana, a power company that operated hydroelectric facilities on riverbeds owned by the state of Montana. The State had sought to charge rent for use of its riverbeds dating back over a century, arguing that these waterways were navigable at the time of statehood and thus under public ownership according to federal law. However, PPL contended that only segments where commercial navigation was possible should be considered navigable and subject to such charges. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation and held that whether a section is deemed 'navigable' for title purposes depends on whether it was used or could have been used for trade or travel at statehood - not based on present-day conditions nor considering an entire river as one entity but rather segment-by-segment analysis.
In the dissenting opinion for PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, Justice Kennedy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding navigability and title to riverbeds under state ownership. He disagreed with the majority's application of a segment-by-segment approach to determine navigability, arguing it could lead to fragmented and inconsistent results. Instead, he proposed an approach considering whether a river is generally navigable in its entirety based on evidence of historical use for trade or travel. Furthermore, he criticized the court’s reliance on present-day recreational use as proof of historic commercial navigation potential which might not reflect past conditions accurately. Lastly, Justice Kennedy expressed concern about how this ruling would affect future cases involving disputes over land rights between states and private parties.
