The Court stated that it would decide such cases on the basis of equity, considering the harm and benefits to each state. In this case, the Court decided that Connecticut had not demonstrated that it would suffer substantial harm, and permitted the diversion. It held that a state seeking a diversion for future uses must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of the diversion substantially outweigh the harm that might result. 22a-377 provides various exemptions from this law, among other things for withdrawals from surface waters or wells of up to 50,000 gallons per day. New Jersey bars transfer of water from the Pinelands Reserve more than 10 miles from the reserve.
Maine bars the commercial transfer of water beyond municipal boundaries.
For example, diversions of waters in the United States and Canada flowing into the Great Lakes are regulated by the Great Lakes Charter and implementing state and provincial legislation. Such compacts require Congressional approval. Some of these compacts, such as the ones governing the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers, go beyond water allocation and address such issues as flooding and fisheries. Although not responsible for water allocation, Connecticut has established advisory bi-state commissions with Massachusetts and Rhode Island to enhance the Farmington and Pawcatuck Rivers, respectively.