WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO; MICHIGAN V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL.; NEW YORK V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL.
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.
Illinois sought to temporarily modify a 1930 Supreme Court decree that limited its diversion of Great Lakes water to 1,500 cubic feet per second, requesting permission to increase diversions to 5,000 cubic feet per second until 1942 due to incomplete sewage treatment facilities. The Court denied the modification request, finding that Illinois had not demonstrated adequate efforts to complete the required sewage system or that health conditions necessitated the increased diversion, and appointed a Special Master to investigate the actual conditions of the Illinois Waterway and feasible remedial measures available without violating the water rights of neighboring states.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
By the decree'-of April 21, 1930 (281 U. S. 179, 696), the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago were enjoined from diverting on and after December 31, 1938, any of the waters of. the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system or watershed through the Chicago Drainage CanaJ or otherwise in excess of the annual average of 1500 cubic .feet per second in addition to domestic pumpage. That date was fixed as affording adequate time, upon a liberal estimate, for the completion of the entire system designed for sewage treatment, together with controlling works to prevent reversals of the Chicago River in times of storm.
The State of Illinois now seeks a temporary modification of the decree so as to permit an increase of. the diversion to not more than 5000 cubic feet per second, in addition to domestic pumpage, until December 31, 1942. The State submits its petition, not on behalf of . the City of Chicago or the Sanitary District, but at the instance of certain communities bordering on the Illinois Waterway, including Lockport and Joliet. The grounds for the application are that the system for sewage treatment has not yet been completed and will not be completed'until the end of the-year 1942, and that, in consequence, through the introduction of untreated sewage into the stream, an “obnoxious, noisome, filthy, unsanitary and dangerous condition to public health” exists along the Sanitary District Canal and the Illinois Waterway.
The State of Illinois has failed to show that it has provided all possible means at its command for the completion of the sewage treatment system as required by the decree as specifically enlarged in 1933 (289 U. S. 395, 710). No adequate excuse has been presented for the delay. Nor has the State submitted appropriate proof that the conditions complained of constitute a menace to the health of the ^inhabitants of the complaining communities or that the State is not able to provide suitable measures to remedy or ameliorate the alleged conditions without an increase in the diversion of water from Lake Michigan in violation of the rights of the complainant States as adjudged by this Court.
In order, however, that the Court may be satisfied as to the actual condition of the Illinois Waterway by reason of the introduction of untreated sewage, and as to the actual effect, if any, of that condition upon the health of the inhabitants of the complaining communities, and also with respect to the feasibility of remedial or ameliorating measures available to the State of Illinois without an increase in the diversion of water from Lake Michigan, the Court appoints a Special Master to make a summary inquiry as to such condition, effect and •measures, and to report to this Court with all convenient speed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems. Corp., 401 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1971)…nces must necessarily tend to the prejudice of one’s neigh-bour. So closely does the law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospel morality, of 'doing to others as we would they should do unto ourselves.’ ” 281 U. S. 179, 696; 289 U. S. 395; 309 U. S. 569; 311 U. S. 107; 313 U. S. 547; 388 U. S. 426. Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1. The case is therefore not an appropriate one for application of the teaching of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 485-486, that “[w]hile the State, under some ci…
-
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1945)…Those [*617] considerations did not prevail in Wyoming v. Colorado, supra, where an apportionment of the waters of an interstate stream was made. Nor did they prevail in the drainage canal cases. Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U. S. 367, 281 U. S. 179, 309 U. S. 569, 311 U. S. 107, 313 U. S. 547. And see Sanitary District v. United States, 266 U. S. 405. We do not believe they should prevail here. We recognize the difficulties of the problem. The matter is a delicate one and extremely complex. To begin with…1 / 2
-
John and Thelma Aaron v. Cooper, 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958)…unty School Board of Prince Edward County, D.C.E.D.Va., 149 F.Supp. 431; State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 49 S.Ct. 163, 73 L.Ed. 426, modified 281 U.S. 179, 50 S.Ct. 266, 74 L.Ed. 799; 289 U.S. 395, 53 S.Ct. 671, 77 L.Ed. 1283; 309 U.S. 569, 60 S.Ct. 789, 84 L.Ed. 953; State of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, & Penn. v. State of Ill., 311 U.S. 107, 61 S.Ct. 154, 85 L.Ed. 73; Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619. It was the judgment of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1930)
- Wisconsin v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1933)