I had an admiralty professor at law school who would often refer to the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as … get this … the Supremes! In honor of Professor Jones, today’s post is about the Supremes’ decision in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana (pdf), where the court declined to expand the definition of "navigable" under federal law.
What is "navigability"? In the case, the Montana Supreme Court held that the state of Montana owns and may charge for use of riverbeds where privately owned hydro-electric dams were located. It was undisputed that the state owned all riverbeds that were navigable at the time of statehood, but that title remained with the federal government for those beds of river that were not navigable. Thus, the ultimate question turned on whether the waterway at issue was "navigable" and which test applied. In a 26-page unanimous decision, the Supremes held that navigability must be determined segment by segment, and that river segments which are sufficiently obstructed that travelers must portage are not navigable.
Why is the decision important to the construction industry? The decision is hailed as a victory by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, which was the only transportation construction association involved in the case and who filed a brief with eight other industry associations. According to a press release by ARTBA, the ruling removed a "road block" that unnecessarily had the potential of delaying transportation projects:
For purposes of transportation development, once something is considered “navigable” it is under federal control, and subject to the permitting authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). An expanded definition of “navigability” could have resulted in a scenario where the EPA and Corps would have the option of exerting jurisdiction over roadside ditches, potentially adding years to already expansive review and approval process for transportation infrastructure projects that are needed for increased mobility and improved safety.
If the state decision had been upheld, any water body … including water features that are common on highway and other transportation projects … could have been deemed to be navigable simply because someone could use it for a “recreational purpose."
Image: Orin Zebest