| OCR Text |
Show Bois de Sioux River Litigation North Dakota v. Minnesota 263 U.S. 365 (1923) This was a suit brought originally in this Court by the State of North Dakota to enjoin the State of Minnesota from continuing to use a system of drainage ditches constructed by the latter State, and for money compensation for damage to North Dakota farmers caused by overflows of the Bois de Sioux River, attributed by the plaintiff to the construction and operation of the ditches. The plaintiff also sought damages for destruction of public roads, bridges, etc., caused by the overflows. See also 256 U.S. 220. * * * Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a bill in equity exhibited by the State of North Dakota against the State of Minnesota. The bill avers that the latter State has, by con- structing cut-off ditches and straightening the Mustinka River, in- creased the speed and volume of its flow into Lake Traverse, and thereby raised the level of the Lake, causing its outlet, the Bois de Sioux River, to overflow and greatly to injure a valuable farming area in North Dakota lying on the west bank of that stream. The damage to the complainant in destruction of roads and bridges is alleged to be $5,000, and the damage to owners of the farms in destruction of crops and in- jury to the arable quality of their land, to be more than a million dollars. A further allegation is that the ditch is likely at every period of high water to cause overflows as injurious as those complained of. The prayer is for an order enjoining the continued use of the ditches and a decree against the State of Minnesota for the damages sustained by the complainant State and its farmers. Minnesota in her answer admits the construction of the ditches for drainage and sanitation, but denies that they caused the overflow complained of, and avers that the flooding was due to unusual rainfall in the successive years of 1914, 1915, and 1916. One owning land on a watercourse may by ditches and drains turn into it all the surface water that would naturally drain there, but he may not thus discharge into the watercourse more water than it has capacity to carry, and thus burden his lower neighbor with more than is reasonable. In such cases, the injured party is entitled to an in- junction. [Citing cases.] If one State by a drainage system turns into an interstate river water in excess of its capacity, and floods its banks in another State and thus permanently and seriously^ injures valuable farm lands there, may the latter State have an injunction in this Court ? The jurisdiction and procedure of this Court in controversies be- tween States of the Union differ from those which it pursues in suits 521 94-497-69------34 |
