Questions Presented

The Montana Supreme Court held on a summary judgment record that the State of owns the riverbeds under more than 500 miles of river, including the riverbeds under multiple hydropower facilities on the upper , , and 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 joined the Union in 1889 and, therefore, that 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 '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?

Merit Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner PPL Montana, LLC
• Brief for Respondent State of Montana
• Reply Brief for Petitioner PPL Montana, LLC

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for American Petroleum Institute, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress, National Association of Home Builders, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Mining Association, Public Lands Council, and Real Estate Roundtable in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Creekside Coalition, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, And Dude Ranchers’ Association
• Brief for Edison Electric Institute, National Hydropower Association, Northwest Hydroelectric Association, Electric Power Supply Association, and Public Utility District No. 1 of Washington in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Freeport-McMoran Corporation, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, and the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Montana Water Resources Association, the National Water Resources Association, Heidi Gildred, Patrick Byrne, Clinton Irrigation Disrict, Boyd Standley, Frank Sommer and Jeffrey Carlisle in Support of Petitioner (revised)
  Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Utah Farm Bureau Federation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, CATO Institute, and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Professors John L. Allen, David M. Emmons, Gary E. Moulton, Thomas J. Noel, Charles E. Rankin, Carlos A. Schwantes, and David M. Wrobel in Support of Petitioner 
• Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Big Blackfoot Riverkeeper, the North Coast Rivers Alliance , and the Klamath Forest Alliance in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the National Wildlife Federation; the Nature Conservancy; Delaware Nature Society; Environmental League of Massachusetts; Indiana Wildlife Federation; Louisiana Wildlife Federation; Montana Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Council of Maine; North Carolina Wildlife Federation; North Dakota Wildlife Federation; Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future; South Carolina Wildlife Federation; South Dakota Wildlife Federation; Tennessee Wildlife Federation; Vermont Natural Resources Council; West Virginia Rivers Coalition; Wisconsin Wildlife Federation; Montana Trout Unlimited; Council Trout Unlimited; River Management Society; Utah Stream Access Coalition and Western Resource Advocates in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the States of Oregon, Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Stephanie Ambrose Tubbs in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Wilbur and Kathryn Hardy; Idelle Collins; Craig Tompkins; Kirtland Farms 600, LLC; Mary Caldwell; Cris Caldwell; Caldwell Family LLC; and Robert and Marilyn Malloy in Support of Respondent