Wisconsin v. Illinois Michigan v. Illinois New York v. Illinois Illinois v. Michigan 11
| Decision Date | 12 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | 3,2,Nos. 1,s. 1 |
| Citation | 388 U.S. 426,18 L.Ed.2d 1290,87 S.Ct. 1774 |
| Parties | WISCONSIN et al. v. ILLINOIS et al. MICHIGAN v. ILLINOIS et al. NEW YORK v. ILLINOIS et al. ILLINOIS v. MICHIGAN et al. , and 11 Originals |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This Court having reopened Original cases Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and having granted leave to file Original case No. 11, and having referred all such cases to a Special Master who has filed his Report, and the parties having agreed to the form of the decree, the Findings of Fact in the Report are hereby adopted, and it being unnecessary at this time to consider the Special Master's legal conclusions,
It is ordered, adjudged, decreed that:
1. The State of Illinois and its municipalities, political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities, including, among others, the cities of Chicago, Evanston, Highland Park, Highwood and Lake Forest, the villages of Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, and Glencoe, the Elmhurst-Villa Park-Lombard Water Commission, the Chicago Park District and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, their employees and agents and all persons assuming to act under their authority, are hereby enjoined from diverting any of the waters of Lake Michigan or its watershed into the Illinois waterway, whether by way of domestic pumpage from the lake the sewage effluent derived from which reaches the Illinois waterway, or by way of storm runoff from the Lake Michigan watershed which is diverted into the Sanitary and Ship Canal, or by way of direct diversion from the lake into the canal, in excess of an average for all of them combined of 3,200 cubic feet per second. 'Domestic pumpage,' as used in this decree, includes water supplied to commercial and industrial establishments and 'domestic use' includes use by such establishments. The water permitted by this decree to be diverted from Lake Michigan and its watershed may be apportioned by the State of Illinois among its municipalities, political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumen- talities for domestic use or for direct diversion into the Sanitary and Ship Canal to maintain it in a reasonably satisfactory sanitary condition, in such manner and amounts and by and through such instrumentalities as the State may deem proper, subject to any regulations imposed by Congress in the interests of navigation or pollution control.
2. The amount of water diverted into the Sanitary and Ship Canal directly from Lake Michigan and as storm runoff from the Lake Michigan watershed shall be determined by deducting from the total flow in the canal at Lockport (a) the total amount of domestic pumpage from Lake Michigan and from ground sources in the Lake Michigan watershed, except to the extent that any such ground sources are supplied by infiltration from Lake Michigan, by the State of Illinois and its municipalities, political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities the sewage effluent derived from which reaches the canal, (b) the total amount of domestic pumpage from ground and surface sources outside the Lake Michigan watershed the sewage effluent derived from which reaches the canal, (c) the total estimated storm run-off from the upper Illinois River watershed reaching the canal, (d) the total...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp
... ... defendant companies, incorporated in Michigan, Delaware and Canada, to abate an alleged ... Illinois, for defendant Wyandotte Chemicals Corp ... compliance with a State's penal laws, Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, ... 618, 51 L.Ed. 1038 (1907); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 41 S.Ct. 492, 65 ... since Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 11 L.Ed. 565, decided in 1845, that navigable waters ... ...
-
U.S. v. Powe
... ... 75, evidently referring to Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) ... 11 Of primary concern is the interest ... Page ... 17 See, e. g., Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 521, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 1154, 20 ... ...
-
Arizona v. California
...352 U.S. 945, 77 S.Ct. 321, 1 L.Ed.2d 240 (1956), 352 U.S. 983, 77 S.Ct. 385, 1 L.Ed.2d 366 (1957), decree superseded, 388 U.S. 426, 87 S.Ct. 1774, 18 L.Ed.2d 1290 (1967); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 51 S.Ct. 478, 75 L.Ed. 1104, decree entered, 283 U.S. 805, 51 S.Ct. 562, 75 L.Ed.......
-
Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs
...Michigan and into the CAWS. E.g., Wisconsin v. Illinois, 449 U.S. 48, 101 S.Ct. 557, 66 L.Ed.2d 253 (1980); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S. 426, 87 S.Ct. 1774, 18 L.Ed.2d 1290 (1967); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 311 U.S. 107, 61 S.Ct. 154, 85 L.Ed. 73 (1940); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367,......
-
Consent Decrees as Emergent Environmental Law.
...of water from Lake Michigan--was resolved through a consent decree in 1967 that continues in effect today. Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S. 426 (1967). Several state attorneys general sought to invoke the court's continuing jurisdiction over the decree thirty-five years later by suing to for......
-
42 U.S.C. § 1962d-20 Prohibition On Great Lakes Diversions
...of Illinois, shall carry out measurements and make necessary computations required by the decree of the United States Supreme Court ( 388 U.S. 426 ) relating to the diversion of water from Lake Michigan and shall coordinate the results with downstate interests. The measurements and computat......