OCR Text |
Show The Court also established the principle that an injunction vail not "be granted against something merely feared as likely to occur at some indefinite time in the future. The Court also held that a diversion of a State1s equitable share of the viater to another watershed was not in itself ground for injunctive relief, and that a State had the right to select its own source of water supply, pro- vided that such action would not result in serious damage to other States* In its ruling the Court recognized the limitation of diversions by the Boston Metropolitan area? of the waters of the Swift and Ware rivers, imposed by the Secretary of liar in the interest of navigation. Delaware Hiver Suit. - This action 8 was brought by the State of New Jer- sey to prevent the Stat^T of New York from diverting waters from certain tribu- taries of the Delaware River, an interstate stream common to the Stabes of Hew Jersey, Hew York* Pennsylvania, and Delaware, and from the watershed of the Hudson River, for the purpose of increasing the water supply of the City of Hew York. In 1923/ the Legislatures of New Jersey, Hew York, and Pennsylvania au- thorized appointment of Coromis si oners who negotiated a Compact allocating the water resources of the Delaware River between the three States. The Compact was ratified by the Legislature of Hew York only. A second Compact, negotiated in 1927* provided for the diversion of 600 million gallons of water daily from the Delaware River and its tributaries by New York, 600 Liillion gallons daily by Hew Jersey, and 900 million gallons daily by Penn- sylvania, with provisions for released flows. This second Compact was not ratified by Hew Jersey or Pennsylvania. New York then proceeded with its plan for diverting 600 million gallons per day from tributaries of the Delaware River, and for releasing water in accordance with the terms of the last Compact, which plan was approved by the Water and Power Control Commission of New York State. Hew Jersey filed its bill in the U. S» Supreme Court to enjoin the State and City of New York from continuing with this plan, alleging among other things that it would cause substantial damage to navigation, power development, sanitary condi- tions, industrial use, fisheries, and other uses, and that it would violate riparian rights, particularly by diversions out of the watershed. The Court permitted Pennsylvania to intervene in behalf of its om in- terests in the river. The decision of the Court was handed down to May k» 1931* J?he decision permitted New York to divert J4l-0 million gallons per day, a quantity less than claimed by that State, subject to certain reservations. It is interesting to note that, in recognizing the right of New York to make such* diversions, it enunciated the important principle that, in th,e absence of a compact between the States, such diversion by Hew York does not constitute a prior appropriation, and shall not give the State of Hew York, and the City of Hew York, any superior right over Hew Jersey and Pennsylvania in the enjoyment and use of the Delaware River and its tribu- taries. -97- |