Opinion ID: 889492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Interpretation and Application of the Navigability for Title Test

Text: ถ 97 The evidence before the District Court having been properly considered, the question remains as to whether this evidence justified a grant of summary judgment in favor of the State. The key inquiry here is whether the District Court's interpretation and application of the navigability for title test was correct, since this test sets forth the legal standard the State must meet for summary judgment and also indicates the type and quantum of evidence PPL must present in order to raise a genuine issue of material fact. ถ 98 Broadly speaking, the District Court perceived the navigability for title test as somewhat fluid. For instance, the District Court concluded that the test allowed present-day usage to be probative as to navigability of a river at the time of statehood. The District Court also concluded that portages do not defeat navigability, so long as the river itself was used, or susceptible of being used, as a channel of commerce at the time of statehood. These two points were crucial aspects of the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the navigability question due to the presence of rapids, falls, and obstructions on the Clark Fork and Missouri Rivers, and because the early usage of the Madison River was admittedly not well-documented. ถ 99 Our independent review of the caselaw in this area establishes unequivocally that the District Court's understanding of the navigability for title test was correct. The concept of navigability for title purposes is very liberally construed by the United States Supreme Court. A river does not have to experience actual use at or before the time of statehood, so long as it was susceptible of providing a channel for commerce. `[T]he true test of the navigability of a stream does not depend on the mode by which commerce is, or may be, conducted, nor the difficulties attending navigation,' and. . . `it would be a narrow rule to hold that in this country, unless a river was capable of being navigated by steam or sail vessels, it could not be treated as a public highway.' Utah, 283 U.S. at 76, 51 S.Ct. at 441 (quoting The Montello, 87 U.S. at 441). Moreover, carrying places, portages, or other obstructions which require a resort to artificial means of navigation, are not sufficient to defeat a finding of navigability. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in The Montello, Indeed, there are but few of our fresh-water rivers which did not originally present serious obstructions to an uninterrupted navigation. In some cases . . . they may be so great while they last as to prevent the use of the best instrumentalities for carrying on commerce, but the vital and essential point is whether the natural navigation of the river is such that it affords a channel for useful commerce. If this be so the river is navigable in fact, although its navigation may be encompassed with difficulties by reason of natural barriers, such as rapids and sand-bars. The Montello, 87 U.S. at 443. ถ 100 Additionally, the term commerce in the navigability for title context is very broadly construed. For instance, in Utah, the United States Supreme Court explicitly embraced the notion that emerging and newly-discovered forms of commerce can be retroactively applied to considerations of navigability. [T]he government urges that the consideration of future commerce is too speculative to be entertained. Rather is it true that, as the title of a state depends upon the issue, the possibilities of growth and future profitable use are not to be ignored. Utah, with its equality of right as a state of the Union, is not to be denied title to the beds of such of its rivers as were navigable in fact at the time of the admission of the state either because the location of the rivers and the circumstances of the exploration and settlement of the country through which they flowed had made recourse to navigation a late adventure or because commercial utilization on a large scale awaits future demands. The question remains one of fact as to the capacity of the rivers in their ordinary condition to meet the needs of commerce as these may arise in connection with the growth of the population, the multiplication of activities, and the development of natural resources. And this capacity may be shown by physical characteristics and experimentation as well as by the uses to which the streams have been put. Utah, 283 U.S. at 83, 51 S.Ct. at 443-44. Because navigability is based upon a broad definition of commerce combined with an actual or susceptible of use standard, present-day usage of a river may be probative of its status as a navigable river at the time of statehood. See Ahtna, 891 F.2d at 1404-05. ถ 101 The evidence presented by the State was clearly sufficient to demonstrate navigability in fact under this test, and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Despite the presence of portages along the Clark Fork and Missouri Rivers, the historical evidence establishes that they provided a channel for commerce at the time of statehood, or were susceptible of such use. While the historical usage of the Madison was not as well-established, the evidence of a log float on its middle portion in the 19th century, combined with its present-day usage, demonstrates that this river was susceptible of providing a channel for commerce at the time of statehood.