Spokane7
50°
February 22, 2012 in Region
High court sides with power company over Montana dams
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has sided with a power company in a dispute with Montana over who owns the riverbeds beneath 10 dams sitting on three Montana rivers.
In a case that reached back to the travels of Lewis and Clark more than 200 years ago, the court voted unanimously today to throw out a state court ruling that could have cost the company more than $50 million.
The justices said the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to conclude that the state owns the riverbeds and ordered the state court to take another look at the case.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Memorial Day observances 
oneanddone on February 22 at 11:37 a.m.
Hey, why not. The indians get the same pass everytime they complain, and then hold out their hand.
philipgregory on February 22 at 12:08 p.m.
‘Supreme’ court sides with corporation against citizens (government) - what a surprise.
Besides the gift of Super PACs the right-wing Supreme Court continue to erode the rights of people and push forward the oligarchy.
greenlibertarian on February 22 at 12:57 p.m.
Anti-indian racism. Typical bigot. Should be scalped.
dataxman on February 22 at 1:26 p.m.
Sad this is such a short article. Read a more in-depth version - it is quite interesting if you take a big picture view.
First, it was unanimous - a rarity these days
The case argues the theory of navigable waterways. Title to riverbeds under navigable waterways transfer to the Stat upon Statehood. The power companies argued that these sections of the rivers were not navigable - according to Lewis & Clark they had to portage around these sections. The Justices agreed that, since these sections were not navigable, title did not vest to the State.
I wonder if this will have repercussions for the Feds when they try to regulate the marsh on your back 40 as wetlands when it is not a navigable waterway
RedCedar on February 22 at 1:30 p.m.
There’s nothing in this story that even begins to explain what the dispute was about. Given that the ruling was unanimous in this age of 5/4 split decisions, it’s hard for me to ascribe it to a “right-wing supreme court”.