Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
Topics
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, No. 10-218 (Feb. 22, 2012), which reads more like a wonderous travelogue than a judicial opinion. The decision can’t help but inspire one to put on a pair of hiking boots and set out for Montana. At least, the Montana explored by Lewis and Clark and that joined the United States in 1889.
Crooked Falls Photo Courtesy of Tom Kotynski ©2011
At issue was the State of Montana’s attempt to collect rent from power company PPL Montana for PPL’s use of the riverbeds under the Missouri, Madison and Clark Fork Rivers. Montana claimed ownership to those riverbeds on the basis that they were navigable in 1889 and thus became the property of Montana upon its statehood pursuant to the equal-footing doctrine. (The equal-footing doctrine holds that ownership of the beds of navigable waters become vested in each state at the time the state is admitted; title to non-navigable waters, to the extent not transferred, belongs to the United States.) PPL did not contest this general principle, but argued that the inquiry as to nagivability for title purposes must be made on a segment-by-segment basis and the specific stretches of rivers upon which their dams were built were not navigable, at least not in 1889. While the Montana Supreme Court did not outright disagree with the legal argument, it held that the stretches, at least one of which was 18 miles long, were merely “short interruptions” which could be circumvented by portage of watercraft, and thus did not impair their navigability.
The United State Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no “short interruption” exception to navigability and, even if there was one, these significant stretches would not qualify. Indeed, the fact that portage was required, the Court held, was evidence of the rivers’ non-navigable status. The Court also clarified the difference between the navigability inquiry for purposes of federal regulation of commerce on waters of the United States and that for title. For the former, the question is whether the body of water itself, or in connection with other bodies of water, was or is a channel for interstate commerce, whereas the latter inquiry is whether the particular stretch of water was navigable in fact at a previous time.
Having addressed the legal inquiry, the Supreme Court then turned to the factual one. It concluded, based upon undisputed evidence, that a 17 mile stretch of the Missouri River was non-navigable. It also suggested that, based on the evidence in the record, neither of the other river areas were navigable, but remanded for the state court to make further factual determinations based on additional guidance provided in the opinion. Among other things, the Supreme Court instructed that evidence of present day use is relevant only if it is reflective of the use that could have been made at the time of statehood, taking into consideration the condition of the river at that time and the type of boats then available. In other words, only if Lewis and Clark’s expedition could have traveled along the stretch may Montana lay claim to the riverbed, otherwise, ownership belongs with the United States.