Opinion ID: 751394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Easements

Text: 94 PUD claims that the district court failed to consider that it held some easements on Indian land and sought additional easements. As PUD itself acknowledges, those easements did not cover all the Indian lands, did not provide for year-round flooding, and did not extend to 2035 feet. Nevertheless, PUD claims that the judgment requires it to pay twice for the same rights. 95 We disagree. As the Kalispel II court stated, the Utility knew it had no right to flood Reservation land, but flooded it anyway.... The Utility obtained easements to flood land neighboring the Reservation. It flooded the land at issue here only after the Kalispel Indians refused to grant similar easements. 28 F.3d at 1547 & n. 2. Partial easements are not an antidote to trespass damages. 96 We note that after the district court's judgment in this case, PUD filed a petition for declaratory order or, in the alternative, a motion to amend its license with the Commission. In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, 77 FERC 61,146 (November 13, 1996), 1996 WL 659542, the Commission described PUD's flooding of the reservation lands and the litigation, and then rejected PUD's request that it find the current license authorized it to occupy the Kalispel reservation lands. 1996 WL 659542,  8. The Commission also rejected as irrelevant PUD's claims that it attempted in good faith to get easements on the reservation lands. It is not clear what relationship this issue bears to the Commission's exercise of its responsibilities under the FPA, since in any event the easements were not obtained. Id. at  13.