OCR Text |
Show The matter was referred by the Court to a Master to tajke testimony and make findings of facts. Following the report of the Master* the Court; enter- ed a decree in accordance with his opinion and recommendation and required the Sanitary District of Chicago to provide proper treatment facilities to reduce the diversions through the drainage canal.^ In its reply, the Chicago Sanitary District pleaded its inability to finance the obligations imposed by the Court* Upon recommendation of the Master, permission was given to divert an enlarged quantity of water and for extension of time for the State of Illinois to finance the oost of necessary sewage disposal works, which the Court required that State to meet. Connecticut River Suit* - This original suit7 was brought by Connecticut to enjoin ilassachusetts and the Boston, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Hater Distric-fc from diverting water from the Swift and Ware rivers, tributaries of the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, for use in the Boston Metropolitan area,, which had been authorized by the Legislature of Massachusetts and per- mitted by the Secretary of l.ar, under certain limitations and requirements. Connecticut established its right, under the doctrine of riparian ownership which both States recognize, to the undiminished flow of the river, and al- leged, among other things, that the riparian doctrine forbade such diversions out of the watershed, and that to take water entirely out of the Connecticut River Basin would impair the navigability of the Connecticut River, the fish- ing industry, agriculture, power development* increase dangers from pollution, and take away flood rights. The Special Master, appointed by the Court to take the testimony, upheld the right of the City of Boston to construct the proposed project, and held that the damage that would result to navigation, agriculture* and to the sanitary condition of the Connecticut River by the proposed project would be inconsequential. In rendering its opinion, the Court apparently abandoned the exclusive riparian, doctrine as applicable to interstate questions, and announced anoth- er principle by the statement: "* * * but the laws in respect to riparian rights that happen to be ef- fective for the time being in both states do not necessarily constitute a dependable guide or just basis for the decision of controversies such as "that here presented* Such disputes are to be settled on the basis of equality of right, but this is not to say that there must be an equal division of the waters of an interstate stream among the states through whi oh it flows. It means that the principles of right and equity shall be applied, having regard to the fequal level or plane on which all the states stand in point of power and right under our constitutional sys- tem,1 and that upon consideration of the pertinent laws of the contend- ing states, and all other relevant facts, this Court will determine wha-t is an equitable apportionment of the use of such waters.rt ^A/isconsin vs. Illinois, et al., 50 S. Ct. 256 (1930) -96- |