State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois State of Missouri State of Michigan v. State of Illinois State of New York v. Same 12, 13 1930
| Decision Date | 14 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | O,12,Nos. 7,11,s. 7 |
| Citation | 50 S.Ct. 266,74 L.Ed. 799,281 U.S. 179 |
| Parties | STATE OF WISCONSIN et al. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al. (STATE OF MISSOURI et al., Interveners). STATE OF MICHIGAN v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al. STATE OF NEW YORK v. SAME. riginal. Argued on Exceptions to Report of Special Master on Re-reference March 12, 13, 1930 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 179-181 intentionally omitted] Mr. Raymond T. Jackson, of Mineral Point, Wis., for complainant State of Wisconsin.
Mr. Gilbert Bettman, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for complainant State of Ohio.
Mr. Wilber M. Brucker, of Lansing, Mich., for complainant State of Michigan.
Mr. Newton D. Baker, of Cleveland, Ohio, for complainants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 181-188 intentionally omitted] Messrs. John W. Davis, of New York City, Edmund D. Adcock, of Chicago, Ill., and James M. Beck, of New York City, for defendant Sanitary District of Chicago, Ill.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 188-196 intentionally omitted.]
These suits, brought to prevent the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago from continuing to withdraw water from Lake Michigan as they now are doing, have passed through their first stage in this Court. The facts were set forth in detail and the law governing the parties was established by the decision reported in 278 U. S. 367, 49 S. Ct. 163, 73 L. Ed. 426. It was decided that the defendant State and its creature the Sanitary District were reducing the level of the Great Lakes, were inflicting great losses upon the complainants and were violating their rights, by diverting from Lake Michigan 8,500 or more cubic feet per second into the Chicago Drainage Canal for the purpose of diluting and carrying away the sewage of Chicago. The diversion of the water for that purpose was held illegal, but the restoration of the just rights of the complainants was made gradual rather than immediate in order to avoid so far as might be the possible pestilence and ruin with which the defendants have done much to confront themselves. The case was referred a second time to the master to consider what measures would be necessary and what time required to effect the object to be attained. The master now has reported. Both sides have taken exceptions, but, as we shall endeavor to show, the issues open here are of no great scope.
The defendants have submitted their plans for the disposal of the sewage of Chicago in such a way as to diminish so far as possible the diversion of water from the Lake. In the main these plans are approved by the complainants. The master has given them a most thorough and conscientious examination. But they are material only as bearing on the amount of diminution to be required from time to time and the times to be fixed for each step, and therefore we shall not repeat the examination. It already has been decided that the defendants are doing a wrong to the complainants and that they must stop it. They must find out a way at their peril. We have only to consider what is possible if the State of Illinois devotes all its powers to dealing with an exigency to the magnitude of which it seems not yet to have fully awaked. It can base no defences upon difficulties that it has itself created. If its Constitution stands in the way of prompt action it must amend it or yield to an authority that is paramount to the State.
The defendants' exceptions deal with the extent to which the diversion of water should be reduced and to the time at which the reductions should take place. They argue that a recent rise in the level of Lake Michigan should be taken into account. This cannot be done. Apart from the speculation involved as to the duration of the rise, there is a wrong to be righted, and the delays allowed are allowed only for the purpose of limiting, within fair possibility, the requirements of immediate justice pressed by the complaining States. These requirements as between the parties are the constitutional right of those States, subject to whatever modification they hereafter may be subjected to by Congress acting within its authority. It will be time enough to consider the scope of that authority when it is exercised. In present conditions there is no invasion of it by the former decision of this Court, as urged by the defendants. The
right of the complainants to a decree is not affected by the possibility that Congress may take some action in the matter. See Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 268 U. S. 232, 233, 45 S. Ct. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 117, 27 S. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
The master finds that, on and after July 1, 1930, the diversion of water from Lake Michigan should not be allowed to exceed an annual average of 6,500 cubic feet per second in addition to what is drawn for domestic uses. He finds that when the contemplated controlling works are constructed that are necessary for the purpose of preventing reversals of the Chicago River at times of storm and the introduction of storm flow into Lake Michigan, works that will require the approval of the Secretary of War and that the master finds should be completed and put in operation within two years after the approval is given, and probably by December 31, 1935, the diversion should be limited to an annual average of 5,000 c. f. s. 'in addition to domestic pumpage.' On this point we deal only with the amount and the time. When the whole system for sewage treatment is complete and the controlling works installed he finds that the diversion should be cut down to an annual average of 1,500 c. f. s. in addition to domestic pumpage. This, he finds, should be accomplished on or before December 31, 1938; and the full operation of one of the contemplated works, the West Side Sewage Treatment Plant, which would permit a partial reduction of the diversion is to be not later than December 31, 1935. These recommendations are subject to the appointment of a commission to supervise the work, or, better in our opinion, to the filing with the clerk of this Court, at stated periods, by the Sanitary District, of reports as to the progress of the work, at the coming in of which either party may make application to the Court for such action as may seem to be suitable. All action of the parties and the Court in this case will be subject, of course, to any order that Congress may
make in pursuance of its constitutional powers and any modification that necessity may show should be made by this Court. These recommendations we approve within the limits stated above, and they will be embodied in the decree. The defendants argue for delay at every point but we have indicated sufficiently why their arguments cannot prevail. The master was as liberal in the allowance of time as the evidence permitted him to be.
The exceptions of the complainants go mainly to a point not yet mentioned. The sewage of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Nebraska v. State of Wyoming United States
... ... It empties into the Missouri River at Plattsmouth, near the western border of ... Page 599 ... Since 1930 only one year equalled the mean of the 1904 to ... The present cycle has persisted for 13 years ... The ... State of Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 521, 26 S.Ct. 268, 269, 50 L.Ed ... is to maintain its livestock industry to the same extent as it has in the past it will have to ... State of Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 49 S.Ct. 163, 73 L.Ed ... to the diversion of the waters of Lake Michigan seemed to require a decree conditioned upon, and ... ...
-
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
...its bounds. Then "it must * * * yield to an authority that is paramount to the State." State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois, 1930, 281 U.S. 179, 197, 50 S.Ct. 266, 267, 74 L.Ed. 799 (per Holmes, J.). In such times the Courts are the only haven for those citizens in the minority. I believ......
-
Gen. Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Works
...127 N. E. 525, and cases collected and reviewed. Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 17, 47 S. Ct. 265, 71 L. Ed. 511;Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U. S. 179, 197, 50 S. Ct. 266, 74 L. Ed. 799. Several cases concerning billboards have been considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. It ......
-
Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp
... ... State of Ohio filed a motion for leave to file a bill ... 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, ... See Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed ... 618, 51 L.Ed. 1038 (1907); New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 41 S.Ct. 492, 65 ... , and they would decide it under the same common law of nuisance upon which our ... 884, 4 L.Ed.2d 903. In that case we read § 13 of the 1899 Act, 33 U.S.C. § 407, which forbids ... at 889 ... In the 1930's fish and wildlife legislation was enacted ... ...
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...of the Great Lakes, see 278 U.S. at 420–21, but was expressed like any other cap on consumptive use. See Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179, 201–02 (1930). 77. See generally Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964); see also Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006) (amending 1964 decre......