黑鷹水壩
水壩開發 > Tax dispute and Supreme Court riverbed case

Taxation of the dam has been an issue of contention since 2000.  During the 2002 ballot initiative fight, PPL Montana said its dams were worth at least $767 million. But in 2003, PPL argued that the dams were worth much less. PPL Montana challenged the amount of property taxes assessed on Black Eagle and its four other dams in the area, protesting 10.87 percent of the $4.48 million 2000 tax assessment, 6.5 percent of the $4.8 million 2001 tax assessment, and 85.65 percent of the $4.96 million tax assessment. This amounted to 30 percent of its total property tax assessment in the state of Montana—with one-third of amount owed payable solely in Cascade County. In February 2005, the Montana State Tax Appeal Board gave the state a partial victory, reducing the state's assessments by 10 percent but otherwise upholding the assessment method. However, the tax board did not address PPL Montana's primary claim that the state was assessing its plants differently solely because they were unregulated. PPL Montana appealed the ruling to the Montana Supreme Court in 2007. On December 4, 2007, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously ruled in State Dept. of Revenue v. PPL Montana that the tax appeal board had properly assessed PPL Montana's dams. However, PPL Montana had continued to dispute its tax assessments from 2003 to 2007, and the ruling did not directly address those challenges. But on December 14, 2007, PPL Montana offered to pay its 2003-to-2007 tax assessments at the slightly lower rate established by the tax appeal board.
Another tax issue arose in 2007. The parents of several Montana schoolchildren filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana against PPL Montana. The parents argued that all riverbeds in Montana are owned by the state, are held in trust for the benefit of all the people, and that such riverbeds constitute a portion of state lands which must be taxed or leased to provide support for public schools. The plaintiffs argued that PPL Montana and its predecessor, Montana Power, only leased these riverbeds from the state and did not own them. The parents sued to force PPL to pay rent due. (At no time in the past had the state sought rental income from Montana Power, and no payments by Montana Power or PPL Montana had ever been made.) Although the federal suit was dismissed for lack of a federal issue, PPL Montana filed suit in Montana's First Judicial District Court seeking a declaratory judgment in its favor, arguing that the Federal Power Act preempts the parents' suit and denies states the power to make companies pay for the use of riverbeds. The state district court held against PPL's request for summary judgment on all counts. The two parties then went to trial, which lasted from October 22 to October 30, 2007. On June 13, 2008, the state district court ruled in favor of the state (although it denied the state's request for interest on the rent due). PPL Montana appealed to the Montana State Supreme Court.  On March 30, 2010, the Montana State Supreme Court held (5-to-2) that the state district court had not erred in its rulings on various issues of summary judgment, that riverbeds were state public trust lands (but not school trust lands) under the Montana Constitution, and that the district court's calculation of payments due was appropriate. PPL Montana, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in November 2010 the Supreme Court asked the United States Solicitor General for the views of the federal government. Finally, on February 22, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held in PPL Montana v. Montana (No. 10–218, dec. February 22, 2012) that the Montana Supreme Court had erred in finding all of the riverbeds beneath all PPL Montana dams navigable.  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that the correct test is whether the portion of the riverbed under each specific dam (not the entire river, nor even a large or small portion of a river) was navigable at the time of statehood.  If it was, then the riverbed is "navigable" and may be taxed.  The case was remanded back to the state supreme court for further hearings.
Flashboards on the dam were slightly damaged during flooding in the spring and early summer of 2011.  Water behind the dam was lowered until it barely crested the dam so repair crews could replace the flashboards.