Opinion ID: 673834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: liability for trespass

Text: 5 The Utility argues there was no trespass because Article 33 of the project license authorizes the Utility to flood Reservation land and compensate the Tribe at the rate the Utility pays private land owners--the rental value of the land as grazing land. It is too late for the Utility to challenge the existence of a trespass. That question was resolved against its position by the district court, and we affirmed the district court's conclusion in our first opinion. During phase three of the trial, the district court found the Utility knew it had no right to flood Reservation land, but flooded it anyway, a finding supported by substantial evidence. 2 6 In any event, the Utility's interpretation of Article 33 is without merit. The language of Article 33 neither authorizes the Utility to flood Reservation land, nor specifies the amount of damages the Utility would owe the Kalispel Indians if it did. The first clause requires the Utility to operate the Dam in such a manner as not to interfere with or damage Indian land of the [K]alispel Indian Reservation. 3 The second clause provides an administrative procedure for compensating the Indians if the Utility breaches the prohibition against flooding Reservation land: [I]n the case such damage should occur as a result of the operation of the project, the Indians shall be compensated in the manner and amount as determined by the Secretary, after consultation with the [K]alispel Indian Community Council and Licensee. Nothing indicates creation of this administrative remedy was intended to affect the rights of the Tribe and the United States if they choose instead to file a trespass action in federal court, as they did. 7 If read as the Utility suggests, Article 33 would authorize the taking of Reservation land by inverse condemnation in violation of federal law and the use of such land in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Federal Power Act. The Utility may not condemn tribal lands embraced in a reservation under the Power Act or any other federal statute, Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765, 786 n. 29, 104 S.Ct. 2105, 2117 n. 29, 80 L.Ed.2d 753 (1984); FPC v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 113-14, 80 S.Ct. 543, 551-52, 4 L.Ed.2d 584 (1960), and may not take the land of individual Indian allottees through inverse condemnation, United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 100 S.Ct. 1127, 63 L.Ed.2d 373 (1980). Section Sec. 4(e) of the Power Act prohibits the use of reservation lands for power production unless the Commission finds that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired and the Secretary of the Interior imposes such conditions as the Secretary ... shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 797(e). Section 10(e)(1) of the Power Act prohibits the use of tribal lands embraced within a reservation unless the Commission fixes a reasonable annual charge for the use of the lands and the Indian tribe approves the charge. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 803(e)(1). None of these conditions were met. Neither the Commission nor the Secretary approved the flooding of the Reservation; the Commission did not find the Reservation could be flooded without interfering with the purpose for which the Reservation was created; the Secretary did not determine what conditions might be necessary for the protection and utilization of the Reservation; the Commission did not fix an annual charge for use of Reservation land, and the Tribe was not asked to approve such a charge. 8 These omissions apparently resulted from the failure of the Utility to disclose that Reservation land would be flooded by the project. The application and the license itself indicated the project would be so constructed and maintained that the Reservation would not be affected. The license stated the water level would be higher in normal flows for possibly 24 miles upstream. The reservation is located 30 miles upstream. The license also incorporated a map locating the project boundary six miles downstream from the Reservation. 4 9 Based on the language of Article 33, the statutory scheme governing the use of Indian reservation lands, and the other evidence in the record, we conclude the project was to be operated in such a way as not to flood Reservation land, and that Article 33 was intended to reinforce that prohibition and provide a remedy for its violation, rather than to confer blanket authority upon the Utility to trespass on Reservation land. 5