State of New Jersey v. State of New York Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 13 15, 1931

Decision Date04 May 1931
Docket NumberNo. 16,16
Citation283 U.S. 336,75 L.Ed. 1104,51 S.Ct. 478
PartiesSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al. (COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Intervener). Argued on Exceptions to Report of the Special Master April 13-15, 1931
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 336-338 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Duane E. Minard, of Newark, N. J., James M. Beck, of Washington, D. C., and William A. Stevens, of Red Bank, N. J., for complainant.

Mr. Thomas Penney, Jr., o Buf falo, N. Y., for defendant State of New york.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 339-340 intentionally omitted] Mr. Arthur J. W. Hilly, of New York City, for defendant City of New york.

Mr. George G. Chandler, of Philadelphia, Pa., for intervener State of Pennsylvania.

[Argument of Counsel from page 340 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity by which the State of New Jersey seeks to enjoin the State of New York and the City of New York from diverting any waters from the Delaware River or its tributaries, and particularly from the Neversink River, Willowemoc River, Beaver Kill, East Branch of the Delaware River and Little Delaware River, or from any part of any one of them. The other rivers named are among the headwaters of the Delaware and flow into it where it forms a boundary between New York and Pennsylvania. The Delaware continues its course as such boundary to Tristate Rock, near Port Jervis in New York, at which point Pennsylvania and New York are met by New Jersey. From there the river marks the boundary between Pennsylvania and New Jersey until Pennsylvania stops at the Delaware state line, and from then on the river divides Delaware from New Jersey until it reaches the Atlantic between Cape Henlopen and Cape May.

New York proposes to divert a large amount of water from the above-named tributaries of the Delaware and from the watershed of that river to the watershed of the Hudson River in order to increase the water supply of the City of New York. New Jersey insists on a strict application of the rules of the common law governing private riparian proprietors subject to the same sovereign power. Pennsylvania intervenes to protect its interests as against anything that might be done to prejudice its future needs.

We are met at the outset by the question what rule is to be applied. It is established that a more liberal answer may be given than in a controversy between neighbors members of a single State. Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 51 S. Ct. 286, 75 L. Ed. 602, February 24, 1931 (see, also, Id., 283 U. S. 789, 51 S. Ct. 356, 75 L. Ed. —). Different considerations come in when we are dealing with independent sovereigns having to regard the welfare of the whole population and when the alternative to settlement is war. In a less degree, perhaps, the same is rule of the quasi-sovereignties bound together in the Union. A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. New York has the physical power to cut off all the water within its jurisdiction. But clearly the exercise of such a power to the destruction of the interest of lower States could not be tolerated. And on the other hand equally little could New Jersey be permitted to require New York to give up its power altogether in order that the river might come down to it undiminished. Both States have real and substantial interests in the River that must be reconciled as best they may. The different traditions and practices in different parts of the country may lead to varying results but the effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas. See Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 520, 26 S. Ct. 268, 50 L. Ed. 572; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 98, 117, 27 S. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237, 27 S. Ct. 618, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 11 Ann. Cas. 488; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 465, 470, 42 S. Ct. 552, 66 L. Ed. 999; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, February 24, 1931.

This case was referred to a Master and a great mass of evidence was taken. In a most competent and excellent report the Master adopted the principle of equitable division which clearly results from the decisions of the last quarter of a century. Where that principle is established there is not much left to discuss. The removal of water to a different watershed obviously must be allowed at times unless States are to be deprived of the most beneficial use on formal grounds. In fact it has been alowe d repeatedly and has been practiced by the States concerned. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 526, 26 S. Ct. 268, 50 L. Ed. 572; Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 466, 42 S. Ct. 552, 66 L. Ed. 999; Connecticut v. Massachusetts, February 24, 1931.

New Jersey alleges that the proposed diversion will transgress its rights in many respects. That it will interfere with the navigability of the Delaware without the authority of Congress or the Secretary of War. That it will deprive the State and its citizens who are riparian owners of the undiminished flow of the stream to which they are entitled by the common law as adopted by both States. That it will injuriously affect water power and the ability to develop it. That it will injuriously affect the sanitary conditions of the River. That it will do the same to the industrial use of it. That it will increase the salinity of the lower part of the River and of Delaware Bay to the injury of the oyster industry there. That it will injure the shad fisheries. That it will do the same to the municipal water supply of the New Jersey towns and cities on the River. That by lowering the level of the water it will injure the cultivation of adjoining lands; and finally, that it will injuriously affect the River for recreational purposes. The bill also complains of the change of watershed, already disposed of; denies the necessity of the diversion; charges extravagant use of present supplies, and alleges that the plan will violate the Federal Water Power Act, 16 USCA §§ 791-823 (but see U. S. Code, tit. 16, § 821 (16 USCA § 821)), interfere with interstate commence, prefer the ports of New York to those of New Jersey and will take the property of New Jersey and its citizens without due process of law.

The Master finds that the above-named tributaries of the Delaware are not navigable waters of the United States at and above the places where the City of New York proposes to erect dams. Assuming that relief by injunction still might be proper if a substantial diminution within the limits of navigability was threatened, United States v. Rio Grande...

To continue reading

Request your trial
85 cases
  • United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 18 Septiembre 1984
    ...law is `subject to the paramount authority of Congress'" 451 U.S. at 95, 101 S.Ct. at 1582, quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 348, 51 S.Ct. 478, 481, 75 L.Ed. 1104 (1931), and that where "Congress has enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme ... the judiciary may not ... fashi......
  • Arkansas v. Oklahoma Environmental Protection Agency v. Oklahoma
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 1992
    ...Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 41 S.Ct. 492, 65 L.Ed. 937 (1921), or that are fed by the same river basin, see, e.g., New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 51 S.Ct. 478, 75 L.Ed. 1104 (1931). Among these cases are controversies between a State that introduces pollutants to a waterway and a downstrea......
  • City of Milwaukee v. Illinois and Michigan
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 28 Abril 1981
    ... ... original proceedings brought by respondent State of Illinois, alleging that petitioners—the city ... paramount authority of Congress." New Jersey v. New ... Page 314 ... York, 283 U.S. , 348, 51 S.Ct. 478, 481, 75 L.Ed. 1104 (1931). It is resorted to "[i]n absence of an ... 839, 841, 43 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975). 13 The establishment of such a self-consciously ... 1073, 1079-1084 (SD Tex. 1971); Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co. , 455 Pa. 392, 319 A.2d ... ...
  • Northwest Airlines, Inc v. Transport Workers Union of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1981
    ...branch of government; therefore, federal common law is "subject to the paramount authority of Congress." New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 348, 51 S.Ct. 478, 481, 75 L.Ed. 1104.34 A narrow exception to the limited lawmaking role of the federal judiciary is found in admiralty. We consist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 books & journal articles
  • Oil and Water Do Not Mix: An Argument for the United States Supreme Court's Deferral to Congress in Exxon v. Baker
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-1, September 2009
    • 1 Septiembre 2009
    ...1245, 1332 (1996). 40 See Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 451 U.S. 77, 95 (1981); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 348 (1931). 41 Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 451 U.S. at 95 (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. at 348). 42 Id. at 95 n.34. 43 Field, supra note ......
  • Groundwater Exceptionalism: the Disconnect Between Law and Science
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-3, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...(apportionment); Wyoming v. Colorado, 353 U.S. 953 (1957) (replacing previous decree); (2) the Delaware River: New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931) (apportionment); New Jersey v. New York, 347 U.S. 995 (1954) (modified decree); and (3) the North Platte River: Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325......
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-2, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...federal constitution than that the states are equal in rank and equal in economic opportunity.”). 3. See, e.g., New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 342 (1931) (“A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have powe......
  • Water Wars: Solving Interstate Water Disputes Through Concurrent Federal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 47-11, November 2017
    • 1 Noviembre 2017
    ..., 558 U.S. at 289 (Roberts, J., concurring in judgment, and dissenting in part); Horne, supra note 3, at 97. 114. New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 342 (1931). 115. See id .; Jeremy P. Jacobs, Rising Tide of Interstate Battles Could Swamp the Supreme Court , E&E News, Oct. 29, 2015, htt......
  • 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