## Facts

- PPL Montana, LLC owned and operated hydroelectric facilities located on riverbeds underlying segments of the Missouri, Madison, and Clark Fork Rivers in Montana.
- For decades, Montana did not claim ownership of the relevant riverbeds and did not seek rent; PPL and its predecessors paid rents to the United States and operated under federal regulatory licenses.
- In 2003, Montana first asserted that the riverbeds were state-owned under the equal-footing doctrine and sought rent from PPL for riverbed use.
- After related federal litigation was dismissed, PPL and other companies sought declaratory relief in Montana state court; Montana counterclaimed for title and rent based on navigability at statehood (1889).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Montana on navigability for title and ordered PPL to pay approximately $41 million in rent for 2000–2007.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, treating lengthy river stretches as navigable despite substantial natural obstacles, relying in part on the ability to portage around interruptions and on evidence of present-day recreational use (especially on the Madison River).

## Issues

1. Whether navigability for equal-footing riverbed title must be determined segment by segment rather than by treating broad reaches of a river as a single unit.
2. Whether the feasibility of portaging around falls, rapids, or canyons permits treating otherwise non-navigable segments as navigable for title.
3. Whether present-day, primarily recreational use can establish navigability for title at the time of statehood, and if so, to what extent.
4. Whether the Montana Supreme Court applied the correct federal standard for navigability for title under the equal-footing doctrine.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Montana Supreme Court.
- The Court held that Montana’s title determination rested on legal errors in applying federal navigability-for-title rules under the equal-footing doctrine.
- The Court reaffirmed that title depends on whether the specific river segments were navigable in fact at the time of statehood, using a segment-by-segment analysis.
- The Court rejected treating substantial natural barriers as mere “interruptions” overcome by portage for purposes of title, where portage is extensive or impracticable.
- The Court held that reliance on present-day recreational use was legally insufficient unless it reliably showed susceptibility to commercial navigation at statehood in the river’s ordinary condition.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the clarified standards and declined to resolve which party bears the burden of proof on navigability.

## Legal Principles

- Under the equal-footing doctrine, a State takes title at statehood to the beds of waters that were navigable at the time of statehood; if not navigable then, title remains with the United States and may be conveyed to private parties.
- Navigability for title is a federal question, assessed under the “navigable in fact” standard: use, or susceptibility of use, in a river’s ordinary condition, as a highway for commerce at statehood.
- Navigability for title must be determined on a segment-by-segment basis; courts may not avoid segment analysis by aggregating long reaches and disregarding non-navigable segments.
- Portage is not a substitute for navigability of the waterway segment itself; extensive or impracticable portage around major obstacles is inconsistent with treating that segment as a commercial highway for title purposes.
- Present-day use is relevant only insofar as it is probative of susceptibility to commercial navigation at statehood; modern recreational use alone does not establish navigability for title.
- Equal-footing doctrine (initial title at statehood) is distinct from the public trust doctrine (state-law management of lands a State owns); public trust concerns do not expand title beyond what the equal-footing doctrine confers.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed because Montana’s courts used an incorrect legal framework for navigability-for-title, requiring instead a statehood-era, commerce-focused, segment-by-segment inquiry that limits reliance on portage and modern recreational activity when determining state riverbed ownership under the equal-footing doctrine.


PPL Mont., LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012)