Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co.
Decision Date | 05 December 1966 |
Docket Number | No. A--10,A--10 |
Parties | , 67 P.U.R.3d 198 Robert JUZEK and Anna Juzek, his wife, Respondents-Appellants, v. HACKENSACK WATER COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, and Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the State of New Jersey, Department of Public Utilities, Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Sylvia B. Pressler, Englewood, for respondents-Appellants (David A. Gelber, Hackensack, attorney).
Samuel W. Zerman, Weehawken, for petitioner-respondent, Hackensack Water Co.
William Gural, Deputy. Atty. Gen., for respondent, Board of Public Utility Comrs. of State of N.J., Dept. of Public Utilities (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney, Richard F. Green, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
Robert L. Solan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Water Policy and Supply Council in Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development (- Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney), appearing herein at the request of the Court.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal involves the effort of Hackensack Water Company (Hackensack) to condemn 26 acres of land owner by Robert and Anna Juzek (Juzeks).
Hackensack is a public utility corporation which provides water in Bergen and Hudson Counties. The main source of its supply is the Hackensack River which flows southward into New Jersey from New York. The water requirements of this territory have increased in recent years due to the industrial and population growth of the area. In order to fully develop the potential of the river to adequately serve the area, Hackensack proposes to construct a reservoir, parts of which will lie in the Township of River Vale and the Borough of Old Tappan respectively. The proposed reservoir will have a water surface of 1,225 acres and a capacity of 4 billion gallons. A portion of the land required for this purpose is owned by the Juzeks. The Juzeks' total property of slightly over 32 acres, is rectangular in shape being approximately 500 wide and 2,700 long. The easterly six acres lie in the bed of the reservoir, east of the proposed impounding dam. The Juzeks have no objection to the taking of these six acres. However, Hackensack also seeks to take an additional 20 acres down stream, west of the dam. Said land is allegedly needed to prevent pollution and contamination of the overflow water from the reservoir.
Pursuant to N.J.S. 48:3--17.6 and 48:3--17.7, N.J.S.A., Hackensack filed a petition with the Board of Public Utility Commissioners (Utility Commission) on January 5, 1965, requesting permission to condemn the aforementioned land. The Juzeks filed an answer contesting the condemnation of the westerly 20 acres. Hearings were held on February 17, March 18 and April 20, 1965. During the course of the hearings the Juzeks moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the plans for the dam and reservoir had not been approved by the Water Policy and Supply Council of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development (Water Council). On February 18, 1965, subsequent to the Juzeks' motion, Hackensack applied to the Water Council pursuant to R.S. 58:1--17, et seq., N.J.S.A. for 'approval of plans for construction of a regulating reservoir'. The application as filed did not seek the right to exercise the power to condemn any lands.
As required by the Water Council, notice of a hearing on said application was published in a local newspaper and copies mailed to Park Ridge Water Department, Ho-Ho-Kus Water Department, Waldwick Water Department, Ridgewood Water Department, Edward Salsberg, Clerk, Township of River Vale, and Frank B. Recktenwald, Clerk, Borough of Old Tappan. The notice advised that Hackensack had filed an application 'for approval of plans for construction of a new reservoir' and that a hearing would be held on a specified date at which persons could be heard 'for or against the approval of the application'.
Although Juzeks had actual knowledge of the proceedings seeking approval of plans by the Water Council, they did not participate therein. The Water Council conducted hearings on April 19, May 10 and May 20, 1965. On the latter date and for the first time, counsel for Hackensack made a request for permission to condemn. The Water Council rendered its decision giving approval to the construction of the dam and authorizing the condemnation of the Juzek lands. On July 20, 1965 the Utility Commission issued the order initially sought, granting Hackensack permission to exercise the power of condemnation. The Juzeks appealed to the Appellate Division from the Utility Commission order but did not appeal from the Water Council order. On Hackensack's motion, the appeal was dismissed, the Appellate Division stating:
Juzeks' petition for certification to this Court was granted. (R.R. 1:10--2)
The focal question is whether the granting of permission to a public utility water company for condemnation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Water Council or whether the Water Council and Utility Commission have concurrent jurisdiction.
Insofar as the Water Council is concerned the applicable statutes provide as follows:
R.S. 58:1--10, N.J.S.A. reads:
'The commission shall have general supervision over all sources of potable and public water supplies, including surface, sub-surface and percolating waters, to the end that the same may be economically and prudently developed for public use.'
'* * * any person or corporation, may make application by petition in writing to the commission for the approval of its maps, plans and profiles of such new or additional water supply or for such new or additional source or sources of water supply.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NYT Cable TV v. Homestead at Mansfield, Inc.
...56 N.J. at 349, 266 A.2d 579; Lomarch Corp. v. Mayor of Englewood, 51 N.J. 108, 113, 237 A.2d 881 (1968); Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co., 48 N.J. 302, 315, 225 A.2d 335 (1966). This Court has found that statutory schemes involving takings can be said implicitly to authorize the payment of ju......
-
Issuance of a Permit by Dept. of Environmental Protection to Ciba-Geigy Corp., Matter of
...procedure possessing some, but not all, of the elements of a traditional adjudicatory proceeding. See, e.g., Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co., 48 N.J. 302, 225 A.2d 335 (1966) (holding that Water Policy and Supply Council of Department of Conservation and Economic Development performs quasi-ju......
-
Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., Matter of
...by implied authority that is fairly and reasonably necessary for the effective exercise of that power. E.g. Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co., 48 N.J. 302, 314-15, 225 A.2d 335 (1966). And, perhaps critically here, the probable intent of the Legislature may be considered in determining the exis......
-
North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Commission, Application of
...333 A.2d 548 (App.Div.1975), certif. den. 68 N.J. 157, 343 A.2d 445 (1975). As the Supreme Court stated in Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co., 48 N.J. 302, 310-311, 225 A.2d 335 (1966): ". . . the Water Council and its agents have developed a singular expertise and are unusually qualified to pas......