State of New Jersey v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 18 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 17,17 |
| Citation | 51 S.Ct. 519,283 U.S. 473,75 L.Ed. 1176 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus intentionally omitted]
Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilly, of New York City, for defendant in support of the exceptions to the report of the special master.
Mr. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N. J., for the complainant in opposition thereto.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 473-476 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
New Jersey invokes our original jurisdiction under section 2, art. 3, of the Constitution.
The complaint alleges that the city of New York for many years has dumped and still is dumping noxious, offensive and injurious materials-all of which are for brevity called garbage-into the ocean; that great quantities of the same moving on or near the surface of the water frequently have been and are being cast upon the beaches belonging to the state, its municipalities and its citizens, thereby creating a public nuisance and causing great and irreparable injury. It prays an injunction re- straining the city from dumping garbage into the ocean or waters of the United States off the coast of New Jersey and from otherwise polluting its waters and beaches.
Defendant by its amended answer denies the allegations that constitute the gravamen of the complaint.
For a first defense it states that for many years it has dumped garbage into the Atlantic Ocean under the supervision of the supervisor of the harbor of New York and in accordance with permits issued by him under the Act of June 29, 1888 (33 U. S. C., §§ 441, 443, 449 and 451 (33 USCA §§ 441, 443, 449, 451)) at points about 8, 12, and 20 miles southeast from the Scotland Lightship and about 10, 12 1/2, and 22 miles respectively from the New Jersey shore and not in the waters of New Jersey or of the United States, and that in view of these facts the Court has no authority to enjoin it from so dumping garbage.
And for a second defense it alleges that for many years garbage in large quantities has been and is being dumped by others inside and outside the entrance of the harbor and at various places from 2 1/2 to 8 miles from the New Jersey shore and at other places from 3 to 25 miles southeast of Scotland Light, that this material would float upon the New Jersey beaches alleged to have been polluted, that it is impossible to determine whether garbage dumped by defendant is carried to such beaches, and that, if any injury or damage is suffered by New Jersey, its municipalities or citizens, the injury is not chargeable to defendant.
And for a third defense it alleges that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to any relief.
The Court appointed Edward K. Campbell as special master and authorized him to take and report 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 parties. It sets forth his findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The substance of the findings of facts follows:
New Jersey borders on the Atlantic for about 100 miles. The shore principally involved extends from Atlantic Highlands southerly 50 miles to Beach Haven. On this stretch of shore, there are 29 municipalities. The state has conveyed or leased portions of the frontage to municipalities and individuals. It still owns 285,000 lineal feet between Sea Bright and Beach Haven. Municipalities have about 13,000 lineal feet and private parties the rest. The assessed value of property within these municipalities exceeds $139,000,000, and their population is more than 160,000. They are summer resorts and the number of summer visitors is many times greater than their population. The beaches are gently sloping and wide and have been improved at great expense. The ocean and bathing, fishing and boating are the principal attractions. Inhabitants of the municipalities chiefly depend for their livelihood upon the business of maintaining these summer resorts. Approximately 500 persons are engaged in the operation of fish pounds constructed under authority of the state within three nautical miles from the coastline. This is a commercial activity that results in the taking of large quantities of fish annually.
Vast amounts of garbage are cast on the beaches by the waters of the ocean and extend in piles and windrows along them. These deposits are unsightly and noxious, constitute a menace to public health and tend to reduce property values. Prompt removal is necessary, and men are regularly employed to haul them away. At times there are 50 truckloads deposited on a single beach. When garbage is carried upon the shore the adjacent waters hold large quantities in suspension. Floating garbage makes bathing impracticable, frequently tears and damages fish pound nets and injuriously affects the business of fishing. Usually the sea along the shore clears within a few days and sometimes within a single day. The deposits generally occur when the winds are from the east or northeast but sometimes southeast winds bring them in. The heavier deposits occur four or five times in a season and frequently throughout the year varying in number on different beaches.
For about 20 years prior to 1918 defendant disposed of its garbage by a reduction system and, except for a brief period in 1906, did not dump any at sea. A plant was destroyed by fire in 1917 and a contractor failed. It then applied to the supervisor of the harbor for permission to dispose of its garbage at sea and, because of the conditions then existing, he gave such permission and designated a dumping place. But later, because of complaint from New Jersey beaches, he designated the areas specified in defendant's answer. The defendant has installed and uses some incinerating plants but, by reason of increasing population and volume of garbage, the quantities still being dumped at sea are very large.
Weather permitting, the city dumps garbage daily. Less is dumped in the winter than in the summer. In February, 1929, the quantity was 52,000 cubic yards while in June of the same year it was 192,000. When dumped the mass forms piles about a foot above the water, spreads over the surface and breaks into large areas. Some materials remain on the surface and others are held in suspension. These masses float for indefinite periods and have been found to move at the rate of more than a mile per hour. Areas of garbage have been seen between the dumping places and the New Jersey beaches, and some have been followed from the place where dumped to the shore. In his report to the chief of engineers for 1918 and in each of his subsequent annual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Milwaukee v. Illinois and Michigan
...(1907); Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 520, 526, 26 S.Ct. 268, 269, 272, 50 L.Ed. 572 (1906). See New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 51 S.Ct. 519, 75 L.Ed. 1176 (1931); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 41 S.Ct. 492, 65 L.Ed. 937 (1921). The right to such federal protect......
-
Steele v. Bulova Watch Co
...command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction. State of New Jersey v. City of New York, 1931, 283 U.S. 473, 51 S.Ct. 519, 75 L.Ed. 1176; Massie v. Watts, 1810, 6 Cranch 148, 3 L.Ed. 181; The Salton Sea Cases, 9 Cir., 1909, 172 F. 792; cf. U......
-
United States v. First National City Bank
...to 'freeze' property under its control, whether the property be within or without the United States. See New Jersey v. New York City, 283 U.S. 473, 482, 51 S.Ct. 519, 521, 75 L.Ed. 1176. That is not to say that a federal court in this country should treat all the affairs of a branch bank th......
-
Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
...in terms of 'a public nuisance,'8 New York v. New Jer- sey, 256 U.S., at 313, 41 S.Ct., at 497; New Jersey v. New York City, 283 U.S. 473, 481, 482, 51 S.Ct. 519, 521, 75 L.Ed. 1176. In Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 520—521, 26 S.Ct. 268, 269 270, 50 L.Ed. 572, the Court said, 'It may......
-
'American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut': The Supreme Court Bars Tort Lawsuits Challenging Greenhouse Gas Emissions
...United States, 313 U.S. 33, 44 (1941). 10 Id., citing Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241-243 (1901); New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 477, 481-483 (1931); Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916); and Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 107 (1972) (Milwaukee 11......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...376 U.S. 340 (1964); see also Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006) (amending 1964 decree). 78. See New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 483 (1931). Notably, Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (known as the Refuse Act) did not apply because the dumping was though......
-
Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
...of States or our relations with foreign nations”). 118. 206 U.S. at 230. 119. 406 U.S. at 91. 120. See, e.g., New Jersey v. New York City, 283 U.S. 473 (1931) (ocean dumping); North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365 (1923) (l ooding of land); Tennessee Copper , 206 U.S. at 230 (air pollutio......
-
The National Marine Sanctuary System: The Once and Future Promise of Comprehensive Ocean Governance
..., 18 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 1, 2 (2010). 374. Baur et al., supra note 43, at 542. 375. Id. 376. New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 476-77, 483 (1931). 377. Douglas A. Kysar, What Climate Change Can Do About Tort Law , 41 Envtl. L. 1, 35 (2011); see also homas H. Koenig & Mich......