OCR Text |
Show CONNECTICUT RIVER LITIGATION 619 ought not to be imposed upon the Boston District. Because first the water is a polluted water and Massachusetts has no adequate control of the pollution or adequate remedy to cure it; that the water is of quality much inferior to the Ware and Swift and the proposed project inferior from an engineering standpoint to the reservoir and tunnel which the Ware and Swift development involves." The Massachusetts legislation confines itself to the taking of certain waters of the Ware and Swift. The Secretary of War has imposed additional limitations. Massachusetts declares that she intends to divert no more water than the Secretary of War permits and that she will in every way follow the conditions he imposes. The exceptions filed by Connecticut need not be set forth or con- sidered in detail. The governing rule is that this Court will not exert its extraordinary power to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, unless the threatened invasion of rights is of serious magnitude and established by clear and convincing evidence. New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 309. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 521. The burden on Connecticut to sustain the allegations on which it seeks to prevent Massachusetts from making the proposed diversions is much greater than that generally required to be borne by one seeking an injunction in a suit between private parties. North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365, 374. There has been brought forward no adequate reason for disturbing the master's findings of fact. They are amply sustained by the evidence and are adopted by the Court. Connecticut suggests that, under the common law in force in both States, each riparian owner has a vested right in the use of the flowing waters and is entitled to have them to flow as they were wont, un- impaired as to quantity and uncontaminated as to quality. It main- tains that the taking of waters from the Ware and Swift infringes vested property rights in that State which cannot be taken without its consent against the will of the owners. And it insists that this Court, following the law enforced hy each of the States within its own boundaries, should grant injunction against any diversion from the watersheds of these rivers. But the laws in respect of riparian rights that happen to be effec- tive for the time being in both States do not necessarily constitute a dependable guide or just basis for the decision of controversies such as that here presented. The rules of the common law on that subject do not obtain in all the States of the Union, and there are variations in their application. The doctrine of appropriation prevails in some States. And every State is free to change its laws governing riparian ownership and to permit the appropriation of flowing waters for such purposes as it may deem wise. United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 702. For the decision of suits between States, federal, state and inter- national law are considered and applied by this Court as the exigencies of the particular case may require. The determination of the relative rights of contending States in respect of the use of streams flowing through them does not depend upon the same considerations and is not governed by the same rules of law that are applied in such States for the solution of similar questions of private right. Kansas v. Colo- rado* 185 U.S. 125, 146. And, while the municipal law relating to |