WATERS AND WATER COURSES-RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF STATES ON INTERSTATE STREAMS

Authors

Abstract

The state of Massachusetts enacted statutes proposing to increase the amount of diversion of water from the Connecticut River for urgent use in Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. The state of Connecticut brought an original action in the Supreme Court of the United States to enjoin such proposed diversion, alleging that it would impair the navigability of the river, reduce flood waters to the injury of river bottom lands accustomed to annual inundations, prevent Connecticut from disposing adequately of refuse, and cause other injuries to the plaintiff state. Massachusetts answered, stating that the proposed diversion was not to exceed that permitted by the Secretary of War; and, in general, showed that there would be no substantial or serious injury to Connecticut. The court held this to be true, said that it would not exercise its extraordinary control over one state in an action by another unless the threatened invasion of right were clear and serious, that the common law rule on riparian right would not apply as between states, and that an equitable apportionment would be proper, and dismissed the bill without prejudice to a later action in case such serious injury should be proved. Connecticut v. Massachusetts, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1931, Adv. Ops. p. 297.

Recommended Citation

WATERS AND WATER COURSES-RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF STATES ON INTERSTATE STREAMS, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 1104 (1931).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss8/45