OCR Text |
Show 624 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS off all the water within its jurisdiction. But clearly the exercise of such a power to the destruction of the interest of lower States could not be tolerated. And on the other hand equally little could New Jersey be permitted to require New York to give up its power altogether in order that the River might come down to it undiminished. Both States have real and substantial interests in the River that must be reconciled as best they may be. The different traditions and practices in different parts of the country may lead to varying results, but the effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over for- mulas. See Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 520. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 98, 117. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. 206 U.S. 230, 237. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419,465, 470. Connecticut v. Mas- sachusetts, 282 U.S. 660,670. This case was referred to a Master and a great mass of evidence was taken. In a most competent and excellent report the Master adopted the principle of equitable division which clearly results from the deci- sions of the last quarter of a century. Where that principle is estab- lished there is not much left to discuss. The removal of water to a differ- ent watershed obviously must be allowed at times unless States are to be deprived of the most beneficial use on formal grounds. In fact it has been allowed repeatedly and has been practiced by the States con- cerned. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 526. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U.S. 419, 466. Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 671. New Jersey alleges that the proposed diversion will transgress its rights in many respects. That it will interfere with the navigability of the Delaware without the authority of Congress or the Secretary of War. That it will deprive the State and its citizens who are riparian owners of the undiminished flow of the stream to which they are en- titled by the common law as adopted by both States. That it will inju- riously affect water power and the ability to develop it. That it will in- juriously affect the sanitary conditions of the River. That it will do the same to the industrial use of it. That it will increase the salinity of the lower part of the River and of Delaware Bay to the injury of the oyster industry there. That it will injure the shad fisheries. That it will do the same to the municipal water supply of the New Jersey towns and cities on the River. That by lowering the level of the water it will injure the cultivation of adjoining lands; and finally, that it will in- juriously affect the River for recreational purposes. The bill also com- plains of the change of watershed, already disposed of; denies the necessity of the diversion; charges extravagant use of present supplies, and alleges that the plan will violate the Federal Water Power Act (but see U.S. Code, Tit. 16, § 821), interfere with interstate commerce, prefer the ports of New York to those of New Jersey and will take the property of New Jersey and its citizens without due process of law. The Master finds that the above-named tributaries of the Delaware are not navigable waters of the United States at and above the places where the City of New York proposes to erect dams. Assuming that relief by injunction still might be proper if a substantial diminution within the limits of navigability was threatened, United /States v. Rio Grande Dam <& Irrigation, Co., 174 U.S. 690,709, he called as a witness General George B. Pillsbury, Assistant Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, who was well acquainted with the River and the plan, and who, although not speaking officially for the War Depart- |