The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in PPL v. Montana, a case dealing with the state’s attempt to charge rent for the use of streambed property it did not own, is now at the core of arguments against Montana’s stream access laws.  Why? James L. Huffman, Dean Emeritus at the Lewis & Clark Law School and Member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity, wrote an excellent piece for the Cato Institute:  “PPL Montana v. Montana: A Unanimous Smackdown of a State Land Grab.”  Read the full article here.  We’ve summarized the high points below.

There are two sides to every story. Unfortunately, all too often there is one side that is championed by the media and one side that is downplayed. UPOM is dedicated to ensuring that the rights of Montanas landowners are protected in the ongoing battle to uphold private property rights. The video on the Mitchell Slough controversy, produced by the Property and Environmental Research Center (PERC), gives a very good explanation of the Mitchell Slough case and what that case really meant for private property owners across the state of Montana.

Excerpt from an opinion by PERC’s Terry Anderson on the upcoming Montana Supreme Court hearing on stream access: The openness of our legal system is especially important in this case. The plaintiff, now calling itself the Public Lands/Water Access Association, challenges the legality of Madison County’s resolution to permit James Kennedy, a landowner from Georgia, to attach a private wood rail fence to a bridge across the Ruby River. Beyond the legal technicalities, this case is about the rights of a private landowner to limit access to his property. PLWA portrays itself as David—a local, citizen sportsmen group—against Goliath—a wealthy, out-of-state landowner. In fact, this is a long-standing campaign by the association, dressed up in public-interest clothing, to gain access to...

UPOM President Mark Robbins responds to a letter to the editor in the Helena IR this week: Tony Schoonen says Madison County landowner James C. Kennedy has been in court since 2009 trying to destroy stream access (Helena IR, 4/10/13). Schoonen also claims that when Public Land/Water Access (PLWA) sued Kennedy and sponsored a “float-in,” Jim Kennedy had electrified fences at the bridge. Judge Tucker didn’t see it that way when he dismissed PLWA’s legal claims against Jim Kennedy’s fences.  In fact, the court record proves that the fences that PLWA litigated and protested were made of wood posts and rails, not electric wire.  The judge said Jim Kennedy’s fences were lawful in all respects and did not block any public travel right, based in large part on testimony...