OCR Text |
Show 470 It also declares its portion of the Delaware River Basin to be an interstate region but only for intergovernmental cooperation "to correct and eliminate pollution, as herein provided, of the water resources thereof."355 Diversions of water from the Delaware River system are regulated by an interstate water-supply act enacted in similar form by New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.356 These Acts provide that, whenever the State agency gives its final approval to any diversion project, "application shall forthwith be made to the Supreme Court of the United States for approval of such project." 357 In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the de- cision and approval of the State agency shall be of no force or effect "unless and until the project has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in those cases in which the said Court retains or assumes jurisdiction in the matter." The corresponding New York provision omits the words which fol- low "United States." In 1949, these three States adopted reciprocal legislation calling upon Incodel to undertake investigations to determine "the feasibility and advisability of the future construction of an integrated water project" within the Delaware River Basin above Trenton, New Jersey.358 This project is designed to meet, 885 id. 856 New Jeeset Laws, 1944, ch. 121; Laws of New York, 1943, ch. 709; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1943, No. 193. These Acts each provide that they will not take effect until the State Secretary of State certifies that the other two States have enacted substantially similar legislation. m New Jeesey Laws, 1944, ch. 121, § 12; Laws of New York, 1943, ch. 709, § 1; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1943, No. 193, § 12. 858 New Jersey Laws, 1949, ch. 105; Laws of New York, 1949, ch. 610; Laws of Pennsylvania, 1949, No. 475. In this connection, two recent holdings of the Federal Power Commission should be noted. The plans of the City of New York included diversion of water from the Neversink River, a tributary of the Delaware, as one of the sources from which its municipal water supply could be drawn. The City entered into an agreement with the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation for construction of a hydroelectric plant in the municipal aqueduct used for this diversion. The Federal Power Commission found that a license was not required under the Federal Power Act for this plant because the diversion had been permitted by the United States Supreme Court in its decree of May 25, 1931 in the case of New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 805. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., F. P. C. Docket |