Opinion ID: 889492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Madison River

Text: ถ 185 Initially, it should be noted here that although the Court faults PPL for challenging only relatively short reaches, in actuality PPL has challenged the navigability of the entire Madison River. PPL submitted various historical documents in conjunction with an affidavit by Professor Emmons, including a 1931 Report to Congress prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers. Addressing the same stretches of the Madison River which are at issue here, the Army Corps of Engineers concluded that [a]s far as is known there has never been any navigation on these streams, and commercial navigation on them is entirely out of the question.  (Emphasis added.) Professor Emmons' analysis brought him to the conclusion, regarding the navigability of the Madison at statehood, that: It is my opinion as a historian that credible evidence in the form of a report actually prepared by the Corps of Engineers demonstrates that the Madison River was not used or capable of use for commercial navigation. (Emphasis in original.) ถ 186 One may be inclined to think of the Madison River as currently navigable, and thus PPL asked Dr. Stanley A. Schumm, a fluvial geomorphologist, to evaluate whether the current physical conditions of the Madison River, with respect to navigability, were the same as or different than the physical conditions at the time of Montana's admission to the Union in 1889. Dr. Schumm summarized his analysis in an affidavit: In my expert opinion, the current physical conditions of the Madison River, with respect to navigability, are not the same as the conditions of the river in 1889 when Montana entered the Union. First, the construction and operation of the hydroelectric projects and reservoirs have materially changed the flow characteristics in the river. It is my understanding that the Madison hydroelectric project, including the reservoir known as Ennis Lake, was constructed over a course of years in and around 1906 and that the Hebgen reservoir project, known as Hebgen Lake, was constructed over a course of years in and around 1912. . . . By making the flow lower during periods of high flow and higher during periods of low flow, the operation of the hydroelectric projects and reservoirs have made the river more susceptible now to commercial navigation than it would have been without them. Second, my review of the historical descriptions of the Madison River indicate that the location and number of the river channels have changed since the time of statehood and that relevant portions of the river appear to have been either anastomosing or braided at the time of statehood. Because reaches of the Madison River appear to have been either anastomosing or braided, my opinion is that it was not susceptible to navigation at the time of statehood. (Emphasis added.) [2] PPL thus contested consideration of the current state of the Madison River in determining its navigability at statehood. For purposes of summary judgment, PPL demonstrated that the Madison River today is not the same as it was at the time of statehood, and that, at that time, it was not navigable. ถ 187 PPL did not quit there. As noted above, for each river in question PPL also offered expert analysis which critiqued and sought to undermine the evidence offered by the State. First, PPL claimed that the State's use of the Lewis and Clark Expedition to prove the navigability of the Madison River at statehood was faulty, asserting that Lewis and Clark provide no evidence whatsoever regarding the navigability of the Madison River and that the Expedition proved only two things: that the Jefferson, Madison and Gallatin Rivers are similar at their mouths and that the Expedition chose not to try to ascend the Madison. (Emphasis in original.) Second, although the State cited to a single log drive which occurred on a reach of the Madison River, PPL countered that the log drive in question took place between West Fork and Varneyโan area which did not encompass the reaches at issue in this case. Further, [t]he mere fact that logs, poles and rafts are floated down a stream occasionally and in times of high water does not make it a navigable river. N.D. ex rel. Bd. of U. and Sch. Lands, 972 F.2d at 240 (quoting Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. at 698, 19 S.Ct. at 773). Third, PPL pointed out that the State's claim in this lawsuit was contrary to its past position. The State failed to claim title to the relevant reaches of the Madison River streambed in the early 1980s. The Department of State Lands, for example, published a list of rivers that it claimed were navigable, but claimed only one reach on the Madison River: Based on historical documentation the Madison River is commercially navigable from the confluence of its west fork to Varney, Montana. Therefore the state claims ownership of the Madison River between these two points. As with the State's log float evidence, this claimed reach did not cover the current reaches at issue. Because the State's witness could not explain why the State now claims the entire Madison as navigable at statehood, PPL was able to posit that the State had already, at least implicitly, [a]dmitted that it did not own the reaches it now claims. ถ 188 Fourth, the State relied heavily upon the current use of the Madison River as evidence that the river was susceptible to navigation over 100 years ago. PPL's evidence and analysis criticized the State's emphasis of this modern evidence, a position for which there is clear legal support. See N.D. ex rel. Bd. of U. and Sch. Lands, 972 F.2d at 240 ([M]odern day canoe use and modern day `boatability' data are not reliable indicators of the River's navigability at statehood.). PPL argued the current use of the Madison River was irrelevant because it could not shed light on the navigability of the Madison River at the time of statehood. Finally, the State presented a 1986 Montana Navigable Water Study prepared by the Heritage Research Center in Missoula for the Department of State Lands. Professor Emmons acknowledged the Study, but opined it was untrustworthy due to its budgetary constraints and flawed historical analysis. The Study itself acknowledged that it was incomplete [d]ue to the funding limitations, and explained that [b]ecause the approach to documenting navigable waterways for title purposes has been constrained by lack of funding, efforts have been focused upon generating the most information for the least possible cost. [3] Emmons also pointed to problems in the Study's methodology, noting it was overly dependent on two of the least trustworthy historical sources to [w]estern historiansโfrontier-era newspapers and personal memoirs or reminiscences. Emmons found western frontier-era newspapers were suspect because they were often vehicles used by local communities to promote the community to possible occupants and business investors . . . [and][f]rontier-era newspaper editors often acted more as unabashed promoters of economic development than unbiased news reports. [4] ถ 189 The District Court began by recognizing [t]here apparently is little historical documentation regarding the navigability of the Madison River. The court then quoted and relied upon the 1986 Montana Navigable Water Studyโthereby granting validity and credibility to the very Study which was admittedly incomplete and about which Emmons explained was an unreliable source. The court further reasoned that the 1986 Study had referenced a 1913 log float from the mouth of the West Fork of the Madison to Varney and that Hebgen Lake has been navigated. As explained above, this log float and the navigability of Hebgen Lake were of no legal consequence because the log drive did not cover the reaches currently at issue and Hebgen Lake did not exist at the time of statehood. See e.g. Riverfront Protec. Assn., 672 F.2d at 794 n. 1 (Navigability for title . . . must exist at the time the State is admitted into the Union. Also it must exist in the river's ordinary condition. . . . [I]t cannot occur as a result of reasonable improvements.) (citing Utah, 283 U.S. at 75-76, 51 S.Ct. at 440-41). ถ 190 Disregarding the considerable evidence PPL had presented, the District Court chose to accept the State's evidence in concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed about the navigability of the Madison River at statehood. Perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that the Study relied upon by the District Court itself acknowledges its work on the issue was incomplete. The District Court thus violated the principles governing summary judgment. ถ 191 The Court does the same thing. It first claims that the Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers in the 1930s was merely conclusory and insufficient as a matter of law to raise genuine issues of material fact. Opinion, ถ 103. The Court likewise disregards Dr. Schumm's expert opinion that the current condition of the Madison River is completely different than at the time of statehood. Instead, the Court relies on Ahtna, 891 F.2d at 1403โa case where parties had stipulated the river in question had remained the same since statehoodโand Utah, 283 U.S. at 82-83, 51 S.Ct. at 443-44โa case presenting no factual issue about whether the rivers at issue were different at statehoodโto hold [t]he present-day recreational use is sufficient for purposes of `commerce' under Utah and Ahtna.  Opinion, ถ 104. The Court, like the District Court, has resorted to weighing, and ultimately discrediting: (1) the evidence and analysis clearly demonstrating for summary judgment purposes that the Madison River was non-navigable at the time of statehood, (2) an expert analysis that the Madison River at the time of statehood was completely different than its current form, and (3) historical evidence generated by a U.S. governmental agency. The Court also necessarily dismisses PPL's analytical attack upon the State's evidence. I believe these evidentiary issues should be tested at trialโincluding cross-examination, rebuttal, and by application of the proper burden of proofโand resolved there by the factfinder.