About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Vantage Point: The Future of Riverbed Ownership Print E-mail
Written by Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM   
Friday, 04 May 2012

A 476Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

In December of 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments about who owns the beds of three Montana rivers. Since the Supreme Court does not hear ownership cases very often, that in itself is of interest. But more importantly to surveyors, the outcome could possibly alter the course of boundaries in rivers. Judges start out as attorneys, and not all attorneys are intimately (or sometimes even passingly) familiar with real property and title law. We can only hope for the best.

For those unfamiliar with the fact that such a decision is in the works, today's article will provide some background and a summary of the litigation since 2003. That was the year that two residents of Gallatin County sued four utility companies, including PPL Montana (now the last one standing), for compensation due the State of Montana for the use of riverbeds in operating hydroelectric facilities run by the named utility companies. The plaintiffs, parents of school children, alleged that the riverbeds were part of the school trust lands and that the utilities had not paid any compensation for using them, thus depriving the school system of income. The original plaintiffs were joined by the State of Montana and two school districts, but all except the State were dismissed for lack of standing by federal court in 2004. The four utility companies split their approaches to responding to the suit, with three following one route (eventually settled) and PPL Montana continuing on its own.

The interminable series of cases and reports associated with this legal altercation (at least 27, and I probably missed a few) cover important boundary material in their discussion of Public Trust Doctrine, Equal Footing Doctrine, navigability, and contrasts between public trust lands and school trust lands. Much of the argumentation is rooted in constitutional and historical roots of the State of Montana, which was first the Territory of Montana as a result of Congress passing the Organic Act in 1864. Although the Territory had written and ratified a constitution in 1884 in anticipation of statehood, Congress waited until 1889 to pass the Enabling Act to finally permit admission to the Union.

Let's go to the core of the issue. PP&L Global, LLC had entered into an agreement in October of 1998 to buy most of Montana Power Company's assets within Montana, and then assigned its rights and interests in that agreement to PPL Montana in 1999. PPL Montana's ultimate purchase included title to lands related to the hydropower projects, and the company also acquired rights of way owned by the Montana Power Company and flood easement rights. Montana Power Company had transferred these lands and rights to PPL Montana by warranty deeds, apparently excepting the beds of the Missouri, Madison and Clark Fork Rivers. But PPL Montana is claiming record title to the lands and flood easements, including those riverbeds. If the deeds are not prima facie (at first sight) evidence of its ownership, then it claims rights by laches, estoppel, and prescription.

One difficulty in these cases arises from the age of the dams in question, in use for significant periods of time ranging from initial construction in the late 1800s to the early 1900s, all well beyond any statutory period ripening prescriptive rights or barring actions by laches or estoppel (meaning that anyone claiming damages should have acted within a certain time frame or forever rest in peace). However, with few exceptions there can be no prescriptive or adverse claims against a governmental entity, so any such line of argument seems to have been doomed from the start.

Another problem associated with the situation is the apparent conflict between state and federal regulation of hydroelectric power generation. PPL Montana claimed that it did not have to answer to the state because it is federally regulated. The State of Montana acknowledges the right of PPL Montana to use water in the rivers, but argues that such private use should not be for free because the riverbeds are lands held in trust for the public.

Riverbeds within territories owned by the federal government are held in trust for future states until such time as statehood is granted. The Equal Footing Doctrine keeps newly formed states on an "equal footing" with other states (present or future) in terms of claims to the riverbeds. Technically, lands acquired under the Equal Footing Doctrine were not "owned" by the United States prior to Montana's admission as a state, but instead were held "in trust for" the future state, "vesting" in the new state upon gaining statehood.

Montana acquired its school trust lands differently. In this instance these are lands transferred to the State of Montana by a grant from the United States Congress under the Enabling Act. Use of school trust lands generates funds for the schools within the state.

Then we have the Public Trust Doctrine to further muddy the waters. Navigable waters are held in trust for the public's benefit, preserving the public's right of commerce and navigation over submerged lands. This, of course, means that we need to define what it means to be "navigable", a term subject to much contention over the centuries. Does a watercourse need to be "navigable in fact" or is being "navigable by law" sufficient to prove it is subject to the Public Trust Doctrine? Does a body of water need to be navigable for its entirety, or do waterfalls and other natural obstructions defeat that classification? Does merely being "susceptible of being used" for navigation prove title to "navigable" waters?

The questions before the Supreme Court are complex and intertwined: Are these public trust lands or school trust lands? Are the rivers navigable? Does PPL Montana owe for its use of the rivers' waters, and if so, how is that to be assessed? Will the (numerous) prior opinions be upheld or overturned? The answers may not appear on the front pages of the news, but they will be significant to future determinations of riverbed ownership. Meanwhile, Montana's Supreme Court opinion in PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana (229 P.3d 421) provides an overview of the issues and some points of interest to those serving as expert witnesses, although the prior cases explain the background facts and arguments more fully.

Wendy Lathrop is licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in NJ, PA, DE, and MD, and has been involved since 1974 in surveying projects ranging from construction to boundary to environmental land use disputes. She is a Professional Planner in NJ, and a Certified Floodplain Manager through ASFPM.

A 476Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


Geneq Introduces
Net20 Pro Receiver

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax