OCR Text |
Show -93- the property or the rights to be taken or condemned are located ¦> MY SUCH PROPERTY AND RIGHTS, THOUGH DEVOTED TO A FUBLIC USE, MAY BE TAKEN AND CONDEMNED IN FAVOR OF ANY PUBLIC USE HIGHER IN THE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE SET FORTH IN ARTICLE III."183a Finally, the "Tri-State Delaware River Commission" is proposed as a body corporate having its members selected equally by the three States to regulate, in a limited way, the activities contemplated and to observe and report to the respective States the operations under, and workability of, the compact* This commission would bear some resemblance to the International Joint Com- mission created by the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Waterway treaty and also to the Port of New York Authority, but would be endowed with much less power than either * At the present time,!"^- negotiations for the ratification of the Delaware River Compact seem to have been broken off, or at least suspended, for the City of New York has undertaken, without the consent of any State except New York., a tremendous project for diversion of water from the upper tributaries of the Delaware River lying within that State to supply the needs of that municipality• And New Jersey has responded by filing suit in the United States Supreme Court against the State of New York to restrain the proposed diversion and preserve the level and flow of the Delaware as by nature it is wont to run. This suit will present for the consideration of the Court some new problems of sovereignty.185 ' 183a Art. XV. Consults N.Y. Laws 1927, o. 682, p, 1712, 1719-1720. (Italics added*) 18^ January, 1930. l°5 New Jersey v» New York and New York City, leave granted to file bill of complaint, .279" U.S. 823, 73 L» Ed, 977 and 1016 (May 20, I929), special master appointed, 50 Sup. Ct. 161, 7U L» Ed. (Adv* Ops*) 239 (Jan. 27, 1930); see also, 50 Sup. Ct. Qk, 7U L. Ed. (Adv. Ops*) 129 (Dec. 2, 1929), 1+ U.S. Daily, 809,6 (June 3, 192 9), k U.S. Daily, 1886*3 (Oct. 1, 192'9), k U.S. Daily, 195625 (Oot. Ik, 1929), Ij. U.S. Daily, 3205*5 (Jan. 21, 1930)o The complaint alleges that the City of New York is about to begin con«- struction ona project to cost $272,587,000 for the diversion of 600 million gallons of water per day, or about sixteen per cent, of the flow of the river at the northern boundary of New Jersey, which will correspondingly lessen -the dilution of sewage in the normal flow of the stream while the up-river storage reservoirs to be built and used by New York City will further prevent the washout of such sewage in seasons when the river would otherwise be at flood stage; that this will also reduce the water level of the river to the grea-t injury of navigation, harbor lines, etc., and will draw the point of admix- ture between tide water and fresh water several miles upstream with consequent destruction of valuable fisheries, including 50,000 acres of oyster beds o-wned by the State of New Jersey and now producing four million bushels of oystexs annually; that there is no necessity for such diversion by the City of New- York, which can procure ample water for all its needs from streams wholly within the State of New York, etc., etc. The answer of New York to the bill |