| OCR Text |
Show 616 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS the flow of the river where it enters Connecticut, that an emergency exists in Massachusetts constituting a justification for a reasonable use of such waters, that the serious injury to the people of the Common- wealth if diversion be prohibited compared to the trivial damage possibly caused to Connecticut and its people if diversion be permitted should lead a court of equity to give substitutional relief rather than that specifically prayed, that Connecticut's contention that the diver- sion will interfere with navigation is not open in the absence of proof that Massachusetts has diverted or actually proposes to divert more water than is permitted by the War Department, that the proposed diversion is in all respects a reasonable use of the waters in question and that the project will stabilize the flow of the river and result in benefit to Connecticut and the lower riparian owners. By its reply, Connecticut denies Massachusetts' affirmative al- legations and alleges that there is no necessity for the diversion and that there is an adequate supply of water in the eastern part of Massachusetts. The Court appointed Charles W. Bunn of Minnesota as special master and authorized him to take and report to the Court the evidence together with his findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for a decree. The master filed his report and the evidence introduced by the respective parties. It shows that he heard arguments in their behalf, and sets forth his findings and conclusions with a recommendation that the bill be dismissed and that (if it be held that lack of present purpose further to develop power at King's Island does not warrant denial of injunction on that ground) the decree contain a provision for the protection of the owner of the dam and power at that place. Connecticut filed numerous exceptions. Massachusetts made no objection to the report. The Court has heard the arguments of counsel and considered their briefs for and against the exceptions and upon the final submission of the case. The report shows that Connecticut sought to prove that any sub- traction from the flow of the Connecticut River through that State will cause serious damage to the State and its people in that it will impair the navigability of the stream, lessen productivity of river bottom lands by diminution of inundation during times of high water in each year, diminish the power capable of development at King's Island, diminish the run of shad in the river and decrease its capacity to discharge and destroy sewage. The brief substance of the master's findings of fact follows: Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area are faced with a serious water shortage in the near future and there is need for a large quantity of additional water. That district includes 35 cities and towns having a population of 1,900,000. Other nearby cities and towns are likely in the future to depend on that district for water supply. The total population concerned is now 2,860,000 and it is estimated that it will reach 4,572,000 within forty years. There is no serious dispute about the need of the region to provide presently for additional water. Massachusetts applied to the Secretary of War (Act of March 3, 1899, § 10, 30 Stat. 1151) for authority to make the proposed diver- sions. After hearing both sides and examining the facts, the Secre- tary permitted diversion of the flood waters of the Ware in excess |
