WISCONSIN ET AL.
v.
ILLINOIS ET AL.; MICHIGAN V. SAME.; AND NEW YORK V. SAME
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York sought to enforce and expand a 1930 decree limiting Illinois's diversion of Great Lakes waters through the Chicago Sanitary District. The Supreme Court enlarged the decree to require Illinois to construct adequate sewage treatment facilities and controlling works to prevent Chicago River reversals, thereby enabling compliance with the reduced water diversion limits without objection from Illinois municipalities. Illinois was ordered to file a compliance report by October 2, 1933, and the complainant states' remaining applications were denied with costs assessed against Illinois.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
These causes came on to be heard on the Report of the Special Master, Edward F. Mc-Clennen, under order entered December 19, 1932, and were argued by counsel.
On Consideration Whereof, it is ordered by this Court that the decree of April 21,. 1930 (281 U.S. 696), be, and the same is hereby, enlarged by the addition of the following provision:.
That the State of Illinois is hereby required to take all necessary steps, including whatever authorizations or requirements, or provisions for the raising, appropriation and application of moneys, may . be needed in order to cause and secure the completion of adequate sewage treatment or sewage disposal plants and sewers, together with controlling works to. prevent reversals of the Chicago River if such works are necessary, and all other incidental facilities, for the disposition of the sewage of the area embraced within the Sanitary District of Chicago so as to preclude any ground of objection on the part of the State or of any of its municipalities to the reduction of the diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system or watershed to the extent, and at the times and in the manner, provided in this decree.
And the State of Illinois is hereby required to file in the office of the Clerk of this Court, on or before October 2, 1933, a report to this Court of its action in compliance with this provision.
And It Is Further Ordered that, except as above provided, the application of the complainant States herein be, and the same is hereby, denied. Costs, including the expenses incurred by the Special Master and his compensation, to be fixed by the Court, shall be taxable against the defendants. (Entered May 22, 1933. See 289 U.S. 395.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1983)…make indefinite appointments of quasi-administrative officials to control the division of interstate waters on a day-to-day basis, even with the consent of the States involved. E. g., Vermont v. New York, 417 U. S. 270 (1974); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 289 U. S. 710, 711 (1933). Continuing supervision by this Court of water decrees would test the limits of properjudicial functions, and we have thought it wise not to undertake such a project. Vermont v. New York, supra, at 277. * * * * * In the alternative, th…
-
Vermont v. NEW York, 417 U.S. 270 (U.S. 1974)…21, 1930. On May 22, 1933, on application of the States for a “commissioner or special officer” to execute the decree, the Court ordered Illinois to take certain steps respecting the diversion, but it denied the request to appoint the commissioner. 289 U. S. 710, 711. Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 260 U. S. 1, involved an allocation of the waters of the Laramie River. The parties were once more before the Court in 1936, 298 U. S. 573. This time the Court entered an injunction against continuing diver…
Authorities Cited
- Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1930)
- Wisconsin v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1933)