State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
| Decision Date | 30 April 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,O,5 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Complainant , v. STATE OF ILLINOIS and Sanitary District of Chicago. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In January, 1900, the state of Missouri filed in this court a bill of complaint against the state of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, a corporation of the latter state, in the following terms:
'The complainant, the state of Missouri, and one of the states of the United States, brings this its bill of complaint against the state of Illinois, one of the states of the United States, and the Sanitary District of Chicago, a public corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, and located in part in the city of Chicago and in the county of Cook, in said state of Illinois, and a citizen of the state of Illinois.
'And your orator complains and says that it is a state containing a population of upwards of three millions of people, and lying on the west bank of the Mississippi river, a public, navigable, and running stream, and having a frontage on said stream of over 400 miles.
'And your orator shows that by the act of Congress providing for the organization and admission of Illinois and Missouri as states of the Union it was declared that the western boundary of Illinois and the eastern boundary of Missouri should be the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river; that the shores of the Mississippi river, where its waters form the Missouri and Illinois boundary, and the soil under the waters thereof, were not granted by the Constitution of the United States, but were reserved to the states of Illinois and Missouri respectively.
'And your orator shows that the states of Missouri and Illinois each have concurrent general jurisdiction over the waters of the Mississippi river forming the boundary between them, and each of said states has exclusive territorial jurisdiction over that portion adjacent to its own shore; and your orator shows that the Illinois river empties into the Mississippi river at a point above the city of St. Louis, on the Illinois side of said Mississippi river.
'And your orator further shows that within the territory of your orator, and on the banks and shores of said Mississippi river, and below the mouth of the Illinois river, are many cities and towns in the state of Missouri, and many thousands of persons who are compelled to and do rely upon the waters of said river, in their regular, natural, and accustomed flow, for their daily necessary supply of water for drinking and all other domestic and agricultural and manufacturing purposes, and for watering stock and animals of all kinds, and that said Mississippi river has been flowing in its regular course and has been used for the purposes aforesaid by the inhabitants of the said state of Missouri for a time whereof the memory of a man runneth not to the contrary, and that said river and its waters and the use thereof for drinking, agricultural, and manufacturing purposes, in their accustomed and natural flow, are indispensable to the life and health and business of many thousands of the inhabitants of the state of Missouri, and of great value to your orator as a state.
'And your orator shows that cities and towns below the mouth of said Illinois river, within the territory of your orator, do and are compelled, by means of waterworks, water towers, and intakes, built and constructed for that purpose, to supply the inhabitants of said cities and towns with an adequate supply of pure and wholesome water fit and healthful for drinking and all other domestic purposes and uses, from the said Mississippi river so flowing in its ancient, accustomed, and natural course.
'And your orator shows that said waterworks systems are constructed with reference to said Mississippi river and for the purpose of taking water therefrom, and not from any other source.
'And your orator shows that heretofore to wit, in 1889, the state of Illinois enacted a law known as the sanitary district act, together with an act for the improvement of the Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, and that under said act of said state the said corporation known as the said Sanitary District of Chicago was organized and is now existing and operating, and that by the express terms of said act any canal or drain corporation organized in accordance with its provisions may have conditions, restrictions, or additional requirements placed in said corporation, or the act authorizing the creation of said corporation may be amended or repealed, and that by the express provisions of said act, before any water or sewage shall be admitted into any channel constructed under said act the trustees of said channel shall notify the governor of Illinois of the completion of said channel, and the governor of Illinois shall appoint three commissioners to examine said canal or channel, and report to the governor if the same complies with the act of the state of Illinois; and if it does, the governor shall authorize the water and sewage to be turned into said channel; and that without the said permit it cannot be so turned in; and that by the general provisions of said act said channel is at all times subject to the control and supervision of the state of Illinois and her authorities.
'And your orator further shows that the Chicago river is situated in the basin of Lake Michigan, and has two forks or branches flowing through the city of Chicago and into Lake Michigan, and that the natural drainage of Chicago, Illinois, is into Lake Michigan, and the sewage and drainage of the territory embraced in the defendant's district, the Sanitary District of Chicago, is led into or flows into the Chicago river and Lake Michigan.
'And your orator further shows that the defendant herein, the Sanitary District of Chicago, with the authority of the state of Illinois, and acting as a governmental agency of said state, and under the supervision and control and subject to the approval of the state of Illinois, has constructed a channel or open drain from the west fork of the south branch of the Chicago river, in the city of Chicago and county of Cook, in the state of Illinois, to a point near Lockport, in the county of Will, in said state, where said channel or drain connects with and empties into the Des Plaines river, which empties into the Illinois river, and which latter river flows and empties into the Mississippi river at a point distant about 43 miles above the city of St. Louis, Missouri.
'And your orator further states that the channel built by the Sanitary District of Chicago was so built by said sanitary district as one of the governmental agencies of the state of Illinois, and by the pretended lawful authority of said state, and under the direction, supervision, and control and governmental power of the state of Illinois, and which said state has heretofore at all times sanctioned, and now, through its governor and other officers, sanctions, the building of said channel and opening thereof.
'And your orator further shows that in the construction of said channel or drain the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chicago, Illinois, with the sanction and approval of the state of Illinois, cut through the natural bridge or watershed which divides the basin of Lake Michigan from the basins of the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers and the basin of the Mississippi river, and that having so constructed said channel, and having about completed the same, and having, under the supervision of and with the sanction of the state of Illinois, extended said artificial channel through said natural divide of the watershed, the defendants now propose and threaten to receive into said channel or drain the sewage matter and filth of the Sanitary District of Chicago, which embraces nearly the whole city of Chicago and a portion of the county of Cook, and, without any legal authority so to do, has already in part effectuated its said threat and purpose, and threatens to permit and to cause said sewage and filth, by artificial means of pumping and otherwise, to flow through the channel or drain towards and into the said Des Plaines river and eventually into the Mississippi river, thereby, with the approval of and subject to the inspection and control and supervision of the state of Illinois, and by the pretended authority thereof, reversing the natural flow of said Chicago river.
'And your orator further shows that the sewage matter and poisonous filth which it is thus threatened to receive and to permit and to cause to flow through said artificial channel into said Des Plaines river is that which is created by a population of upwards of one and one half millions of people, besides that which is created by a great number of stock yards, slaughtering establishments, rendering establishments, distilleries, and other business enterprises and industries lining both sides of the Chicago river, producing filth and noxious matters; all of which are there discharged into the said Chicago river or drained therein from the surface.
'And your orator further shows that for many years past the said city of Chicago, the greater portion of which is embraced in the limits of the defendant corporation, the Sanitary District of Chicago, as aforesaid, has been discharging its sewage matter and filth into the Chicago river and into Lake Michigan in such large quantities that much of it has accumulated in the bed and along the sides of the river and upon the bed of said Lake Michigan, near the shores thereof, and that the plan threatened and attempted now to be adopted by the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chicago, acting in conjunction with and subject to the control of the defendant, the state of Illinois, and by the pretended authority of the said state of Illinois, will loosen said accumulated matter and filth, and will also direct it and cause it to flow towards and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni
...limited to the abatement of the nuisance, but which can allow for recovery for damages by the body politic. Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed. 497 (1901); Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 20 U.S. 251, 44 L.Ed. 347 (1900); Georgia v. Pa. R. Co., 324 U.S. 439, 447,......
-
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Docket 126 at 3. 3. For example, AEP cites two companion cases, Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed. 497 (1901) and Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 26 S.Ct. 268, 50 L.Ed. 572 (1906), both of which involved suits by the State o......
-
Commonwealth v. Monsanto Co.
...... be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a ...at 237-39 [, 27 S.Ct. 618] [.] Likewise in Missouri v. Illinois , [180 U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed. 497 (1901),] where ......
-
Henry v. State
...... rights are involved. In the case which is found in 180 U.S. 236 (21 S.Ct. 331; 45 L.Ed. 497)--Missouri v. Illinois--reannouncing what has been decided In re. Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (15 S.Ct. 900; 39 L.Ed. 1092), it is. expressly decided that in ......
-
'American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut': The Supreme Court Bars Tort Lawsuits Challenging Greenhouse Gas Emissions
...9 2011 WL 2437011, at *7, citing Nye v. 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. Milwauke......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 12 (1876); Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U.S. 1, 15–17 (1888); Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 227 (1900); Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 518 (1906); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 438–39, 438 n.7 (1981). 61. See Monroe, supra note 3......
-
Credit Reform and the States: The Vital Role of Attorneys General After Dodd-Frank
...250. Snapp , 458 U.S. at 600. 251 . Id. at 602. 252 . Id. at 601, 605–06. 253 . See, e.g. , id. at 603–04 (citing Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901) (“Missouri sought to enjoin [Illinois] from discharging sewage [that polluted] the Mississippi River in Missouri”)). 254 . See, e.g. , ......
-
Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
...nature.”), af ’ d , 666 F.2d 30, 11 ELR 20888 (2d Cir. 1981). 65. 206 U.S. 230 (1907). 66. Id. at 237 (citing Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241 (1901)). Missouri v. Illinois, involving Chicago’s discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River, was the irst case to set forth the rationa......
-
Table of Cases
...1177-78, 1331 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641 (1920), 161, 298, 311, 314, 749, 752 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed. 497 (1901), 667 Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins II), 495 U.S. 33, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990), 696, 1126 Missour......