Juzek v. Hackensack Water Co.

Decision Date05 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 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.
CourtNew 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:

'Granted in view of the fact that Hackensack Water applied for and obtained approval of the Water Policy and Supply Council of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development for the construction of the dam and reservoir in question, and for the condemnation of the necessary lands therefor. The present appeal is therefore academic.'

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.'

R.S. 58:1--17, N.J.S.A. reads in part:

'* * * no person or corporation supplying or proposing to supply the inhabitants of any municipal corporation or other civil division of the state with water, Shall have power to condemn lands, water or water rights for any new or additional source of water supply, whether such source be surface, subsurface, well or percolating water, or to divert water from such new or additional source (other than for new or additional sources of water supply, the maps or plans for which, in conformity with permits for the taking thereof, were heretofore approved by the state water policy commission or the board or body theretofore authorized by law, to grant such approval), until such * * * person or corporation has first submitted a petition to the commission, as hereinafter provided, and until the commission shall have approved the same as submitted or with such modifications and subject to such conditions as it may determine should be incorporated in such approval after a hearing as hereinafter provided.' (Emphasis supplied)

R.S. 58:1--18, N.J.S.A. reads in part:

'* * * 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.

The application shall show the sources of the proposed supply and shall be accompanied by an exhibit of maps of the lands to be acquired and showing the sites and areas of the proposed reservoirs, a plan of the other works proposed to be constructed, the profiles of the aqueduct lines and the flow lines of the water when impounded, maps, plans and surveys and abstract of official reports relating to the same, showing the need for a particular source or sources of supply and the reasons therefor, the Plan proposed for protecting the new supply and watershed from contamination or the proposed plan for filtering such new supply. The application shall also be accompanied by such proof as to the character and purity of the water supply proposed to be acquired as the commission shall require.' (Emphasis supplied)

R.S. 58:1--20, N.J.S.A. reads:

'The commission shall, upon the day specified in the notice, or upon such subsequent day or days to which it may adjourn the hearing, proceed to examine the maps and profiles and to hear the proofs and arguments submitted in support of and in opposition to the proposed project. The commission shall determine whether the plans proposed are justified by public necessity, whether they provide for the proper and safe construction of all works connected therewith, Whether they provide for the proper protection of the supply and the watershed from contamination or provide for the proper filtration of such additional supply, whether the reduction of the dry-season flow of any stream will be caused to an amount likely to produce insanitary conditions or otherwise unduly injure public or private interest, and whether the plans are just and equitable to the other municipalities and civil divisions of the state affected thereby and to the inhabitants thereof, particular consideration being given to their present and future necessities for sources of water supply.' (Emphasis supplied)

R.S. 58:6--1, N.J.S.A. reads in part:

'Every * * * corporation now or hereafter organized under any law of this state and engaged in the business of supplying water for public use in one or more municipalities of this state * * * Which * * * shall obtain from the state water policy commission or other state agency succeeding to and exercising the jurisdiction and powers of such commission, the Approval of plans for and assent of the state to the diversion of water for any new or additional water supply or from any new or additional source or sources of water supply in this state, May acquire by * * * condemnation all such lands, water and water rights as may be required to enable such municipal or other corporation, or such person or persons, to divert and use water for such new or additional water supply or from such new or additional source or sources of supply in accordance with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • NYT Cable TV v. Homestead at Mansfield, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 28 Junio 1988
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 8 Mayo 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 8 Julio 1992
    ...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
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Junio 1980
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT