The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-05-14

| tie case of the Acquackanonk Water CO.
| VS.. Watson. z tewar 366. In this case
a water company, supplying Passaic had
erected a lam In a stream for storage. 2
| manufacturer entitled as riparian owner
| asked an injunction Q) because OF the de-
t%entlon. and tl because q the aeierlora-
ti0n of tile quality of the water in the
| stream for bleaching purposes. Vice
Chancellor Dodd said.-
"AH that the law requires OF the party
by or over whose lands a stream passes
is that he should use the water IN a rea-
sonable manner and so as not to destroy
or render useless or materially diminish
or effect the applications of the water BY
the proprietors above or below on the
stream. | cannot advise a de-
cree requiring the dam IN this case s.sa, 70 n ns
necessarily regulate the flow Of the
stream, as the complainant is entitled to
have it II Is construc tie ! on the ~ c com-
plant to the proprietor below no matter
how high, if the flow of the brook be
not u~nreasonably diminished or interrupt
STfds opinion was affirmed by the Court
Of Errors and Appeals. (See 2 stewart,
The dam which I propose to erect at
Beach Glen, will not diminish or effect
the applications of the waters required for
the feeder Of The Canal,
ing water to Jersey City ] may so operate
the gates as to disregard the
fsssasl. e e this she / a Gsasa d # That th IL
order to operate the works for Jersey City
l must Of necessity maintain a steady
flow from this reserv DIR into the river.
And 90 that the presumption is that |
will so operate the works without preju-
dice to my neighbor, but If / should fail,
the Court Of Chancery would compel me
TO do so.
The Canal ompany in it's multsfarious
litigation, has furnished me with the pre-
cedent and law in this regard. Chan-
eellor Runyon said In the case Of the Lee
high alley Railroad Company ys. 8. Y.
Ms Stew, 145:-
The interests, public as we'll as private,
dependent upon the use by the complain
ants of the water. are very great, and II
use of the water without prejudice to the
rights of either. 1t is the duty of q court
of equity, and 1t alone is competent to
the work, to regulate the use OF water
among those who are entitled to the use
of 1t in common in such manner as to
preserve the rigats of each. Bellknap v.
Trimble, 3 Paige, 571; Ballon v. Inhabi-
tants of Hopkinton. A Gray. 324- Said the
Court in the latter case: In regulating
the rights of mill owners and Others in
the use of a stream wherein number of
persons are interested, equity is able by
one decree to regulate their respective
rights, to fix the time and manner in
which water may be drawn and within
what limits it shall or shall not be drawn
by all parties, respectively; and this Is
peculiarly adapted to the relief sought
against nuisance and disturbance, and
affords a more complete and adequate
remedy than can be afforded by one or
many suits at law
1T Is very manifest that this is a case
in which 1t is particularly incumbent
upo this Court to intervene. Both parties
are in the exercise of franchises granted
by the Legislature for the ultimate eneiit
of the public, and both are accordingly
engaged in business of great Importance
to the public. The complainants claim
the right TO the use of the water, not
only under legislative authority, but un-
der such authority obtained with the con-
sent of the defendant. The interruption
of the business of the compliments would
be a public as we'll as a private injury.
In the suits at law, the Society, by estab-
fishing their claim against the complain
ants, would only recover damages for
past injury. They cannot in those
suits obtain any guaranty for the flu
ture. Already there are two of those
actions in progress. There may be more.
If the Society rights have been invaded.
this court is able by a single suit, to as
certain and award damages for injury to
them in past and to secure protection to
the society therein for the future, and it
can, at the same time, secure to the COM
~plainants thir rights providing for the
peaceable enjoyment, by both parties Of
their respective rights, whatver they may
be. In view of the magnitude of the in
terests involved in the controversy, and
the Importance of constantly securing to
each party their entire rights; and in
view of the equities which the complain
ants set up, arising out of various trans
actions, covering a period of half a CEN
fury. and consisting to no small degree of
equitable e~stoppels, and in view of the
liability of the compliments TO a multi
plicity Of suits at law, 1T is incumbent on
this court to draw the controversy into
this forum for determination"
And Chief Justice Beasley, on the APP
peal from this case, although not entirely
approving of the decision below on this
point said
Neither have I been able to discover
a ground for equitable intervention in such
cass, because of the principle that when
common of a stream Of water. the dis
tribution among them of their respective
shares is an equitable function hi
a court of equity has jurisdiction in such
cases is undeniable. and in the present
case, il either the appellant or the re-
spondent had applied for relief, and a
regulation of it's right. to the Court of
doubt of the right of such tribunal to
TAX the controversy in charge" Ceases
cited.)
Stew, 3s9-s41. In Court of Errors.
8. AS to the claim of the Company that
in dry times the canal has barely sufi-
Gent water to continue Navigation. and
hence that the watershed does not afford
sufficient water for the purposes of the
company and of jersey City under the
specification.
In its natural state the Rockaway River
does not furnish every day Of the year
sufficient water for Jersey City and
the necessities of the Morris Canal.
But with the storage proposed there will
be ample water for Jersey City and the
Morris Canal. In proof of this | refer
simply to the reports above mentioned,
and to your own specifications. Accord.
ing to your engineers land | submit that
their estimates are ultra-conServative)
each mile of watershed in the Rockaway
Valley will yield, with proper storage,
such as l propose to give. $500 gallons
of water per square mile of area per
day. in the driest period; this is equivalent
to ~seventy-efgat million gallons of wa
added twelve million gallons of water fur
nished from Lake Hopatcong or ninety
million gallons of water in all. The re-
of the canal from Don to
Pompton, a distance of eight and nine
tenth $50 miles cannot by the most liberal
estimates. exceed fifteen million gallons
Of water per day. (See Report of Croes
leave for Jersey City seventy-ive million
gallons of water per day on the most cons
servative basis in the driest season. II
order to supply jersey City an equable flow
of water must and will be maintained
every day in the river at the last intake
of the canal, many times in excess of the
requirements of the, Canal, With my
scarcity of water in theAriver, either for
the canal or for Jersey City.
nave not dwelt in this communication.
upon the effect Of the Pompton
River bid under plan c. pre-
sented by me a because t would aps
determined upon supply from the Rock
away River at High Service, II possible;
and (2) because no claim has as yet been
made nv the Morris Canal. or by other