Opinion ID: 889492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Missouri River

Text: ถ 197 The State claimed that [a]s anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Lewis and Clark Expedition must concede, the Missouri River is navigable in fact throughout Montana. PPL begged to differ. Professor Emmons averred that he had acquired more than a passing knowledge of the Lewis and Clark Expedition during [his] 35 years as a professional historian in Montana. [He knew] that the Expedition did not navigate the Great Falls Reach of the Missouri because it was impossible for them to do so. (Emphasis in original.) Emmons explained: To my knowledge as a professional historian, there has never been any navigation on the Missouri River in the Great Falls Reach because the physical characteristics of the falls prevent it. Captain William Clark prepared a map describing the features of the Great Falls Reach of the Missouri River. On this map, Captain Clark listed fifteen different rapids and nine waterfalls, including the five named waterfalls in this reach: (1) Black Eagle Fallsโ26 ft. 5 in. descent, (2) Colter Falls (now submerged) โ14 ft. 7 in. descent, (3) Beautiful Cascade (now named Rainbow Falls)โ47 ft. 8 in. descent, (4) Crooked Fallsโ9 ft. descent, and (5) the Great Falls of the Missouriโ87 ft. 3/4 in. descent. (Emphasis in original.) Further, Emmons cited to an 1896 inquiry by Samuel Hill, who asked the War Department whether a permit was required for maintenance on the dam constructed immediately above Black Eagle Falls on the Missouri River. J.C. Sanford, Captain of the Corps of Engineers, conducted a Report which stated: The dam referred to is located just above the Black Eagle Falls of the Missouri River, and is 3 1/4 miles below the railroad bridge at the town of Great Falls. About 400 feet above this bridge begins the series of rapids and falls in which the river falls 412 feet in a distance of 11 miles. . . . This portion of the river can, in my judgment never be made navigable at a cost that the demands of commerce will ever justify. Relying upon Captain Sanford's Report, the War Department responded to Mr. Hill's request, informing him that no permit or action of the War Department was required. ถ 198 PPL also provided a Report from the War Department for the Fiscal Year that ended June 30, 1898. The Report concluded the reach from Fort Benton to Great Falls was an unnavigable section occupied by cataracts and dangerous rapids. It also detailed various navigation improvement projects contemplated for the reach between Great Falls and Stubbs Ferry, within the upper reach of the Missouri, south of Great Falls. The Report estimated that the cost of creating a mere three-foot deep channel from Cascade to Great Falls would be $213,646.50 in 1898 dollars. ถ 199 Based upon his review of the evidence, Professor Emmons opined that credible historical evidence demonstrates clearly that the Great Falls Reach of the Missouri River is not and has never been navigable and that the reach of the Missouri River between Great Falls and Stubbs Ferry would have required post-statehood improvements to support commercial navigation. 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.). ถ 200 Once again, PPL challenged the validity of the State's evidence on this river. The State had cited to the Missouri Corps Report, which claimed that fur trappers [] plied the waters of the Upper Missouri through territorial days, and that [a]fter the discovery of gold, miners and settlers floated the river to Great Falls and Ft. Benton from the Helena area mining districts. PPL offered Emmons' assessment: Besides the fact that the geography of the Great Falls Reach of the Missouri River makes it utterly impossible that these miners actually floated the entire river to Fort Benton, there are considerable historical problems with the source of these reports, Hubert Hugh Bancroft. Bancroft (a nineteenth-century book seller and antiquarian) did not write anything that approaches what the State refers to in its Brief as historical works generally considered authentic. He is not an authentic source of historical information. One historian, Kevin Starr, referred to Bancroft: as a historian, [he] was often ludicrous and sometimes dishonest. I know of no professional historian who would use Bancroft as a credible historical source, as the State has done. Emmons perceived that [i]nstead of relying on more credible sources such as court records, business records or governmental reports, the State relies exclusively on secondary sources that by their own admission are limited in scope and which rely on untrustworthy primary sources to reach their conclusions. Further, PPL rebutted the State's legal argument that our previous precedent had established navigability for title purposes of the entire Missouri River. The State had relied upon Gibson v. Kelly, 15 Mont. 417, 39 P. 517 (1895) and Herrin v. Sutherland, 74 Mont. 587, 241 P. 328 (1925), but as PPL correctly pointed out, in neither Gibson nor Herrin had either party contested the issue of navigability for title. Gibson, 15 Mont. at 417, 39 P. at 517; Herrin, 74 Mont. at 594, 241 P. at 330. Thus, this issue had never been previously decided by this Court. ถ 201 The District Court dismissed PPL's evidence and relied upon Mont. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Commn., 185 F.2d 491 (D.C.Cir. 1950), a non-title case, to enter summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court decides similarly, reasoning that PPL has challenged only relatively short reaches. Opinion, ถ 108. In particular, when reviewing the Missouri River, the Court states that [t]he Great Falls Reach, even though a roughly 17-mile stretch of the Missouri River, is merely a short interruption . . . Opinion, ถ 108. The Court does not explain why a non-navigable reach running from Fort Benton to Great Falls is too short, and how it can so declare as a matter of law without factfinding. These determinations necessarily require a factfinder to consider each interruption in the context of the facts about the topography of the rivers, their history, impediments to navigation, and the use, and susceptibility to use, of the rivers as highways of commerce. Utah, 283 U.S. at 73, 51 S.Ct. at 439-40. ถ 202 I would agree with the Court that, with respect to all the relevant reaches of the Madison, Clark Fork, and Missouri Rivers, the State met its initial burden to prove navigability under the title test. The Court's initial statement is thus correct: The evidence presented by the State was clearly sufficient to demonstrate navigability in fact under this test. . . . Opinion, ถ 101. But the summary judgment inquiry is not supposed to end there. Without judgment as to weight or credibility, we are to determine whether PPL raised genuine factual issues by more than mere speculation. Clearly, PPL has done so. There is nothing insufficient or conclusory about PPL's evidence. Rather, its evidence is relevant and material. PPL has satisfied its burden to produce substantial evidence that the disputed reaches of the rivers were, at the time of statehood, non-navigable. The Court's decision to the contrary makes one wonder just what evidence the Court would have considered sufficient for PPL to defeat summary judgment in this case. ถ 203 Consistent with the legal standards, this Court has steadfastly guarded against depriving a party of the right to trial by the improper entry of summary judgment. Today, I believe we step back from the protection of that right. I would not do so, but would reverse the District Court's entry of summary judgment and remand for trial.