The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-05-14
FLYNN'S REPLY.
East Jerseys Own Law
Turned Against It in
the Water Right
Dispute.
COURT DECISIONS CITED
Morris Canal Only Entitled
to Absolutely Necessary
Water.
WINTER FLOODS UNCONTROLLED
Enough May Be Stored for City
Use While Navigation Is
Stopped by the
Weather.
WINTER FLOODS UNCONTROLLED

Mr.. NJ. B. Flynn, one of the bidders
for the new water supply has sent a COM
munication to Corporation Counsel Nc
Dermott, ~embodying a reply 70 the octo-
pus claims of the Morris Canal to almost
all the water in the upper part OF the
State. Mr.. Flynn takes exception TO
many of the company's claims as the
following text of the letter will show:
Jersey City. May 8. 1898.
Hon. Allan L. McDermOtt, Corporation
Counsel, Jersey City, N. -
Dear Sfr-I nave amin with some
interest the communication sent 10 you
by Messrs- Corbln & Corbin, attorneys OF
the Morris and Banking Company. rela-
tive 10 the rights OF that ompany III thS
waters of the Rockaway River, proposed
supply fos Jersey City. under the speclha
cations A and b, advertised Tor by me
city. / expected that these claims wouia
each bid. but the Company has contented
itself with generaiities. The orlglnai
protest to the City was signed by the ON
chary of committing themselves. and
hence act through their Attorneys.
h Attorneys claim, however, generaHy
that the Canal Company has a
interest and claim upon all the waters OF
the Rockaway Valley TO insure the unai-
minished flow of the River, tor the navl-
GdIl00 Ol lit II 0l4o
that as in dry times the Company mas
barely sufficient water TO continue navl,
cation the watershed does not aHoro
sufficient water for the purposes OF me
Company and of Jersey City under the
specifications.
d Many acts of the Legislature OF the
to; very few of them, however
have any bearing upon this sub
5ect. The Morris Canal has claimed m
many litigations that it does not divert
any of the waters of the KiVer
for the purposes Of navigation.
The claim Of the Company through SIX
that it put into the River more water
from Lake Hopatcong which IS iocated
in another watershed than 1t took out Oh
the River at Boonton.
In the suit for an injunction brought by
the Society for Establishing useful Man
ufactures against the Canal company,
argued before Chancellor Williamson. IN
1923, the learned Chancellor, in his opin-
ion. puts the contention OF the Company
in the following language.
.The defendants admit IN tnelr answer
that they have erected a dam and other
water works on the Rockaway River near
Dover and Powerville and other places,
for the purposes of diyerting into thelr
Canal such of the said waters as may pe
necessary, in order to carry into efIeqt
the objects of their incorporation. But
h aver that the quantity OF
The natural current of the Fassaic
and its tributary streams, will not pc IN
any degree diminished by the Cahal. IN
asmuch as the waters to be drawn from
the Hopatcong. and those from one OF
the head branches of the Raritan Rlver,
after passing through and supplying the
Canal to Dover, will be there let into the
Rockaway. and will thus introduce into
the bed of the River as much water as
viii afterwards be taken from 1t or from
any OF its tributary streams End lof thew aesy
daal''sl at the outlet Of the Lake,
which has been raised by the De
PENDANTS. five feet above its former height
and mic they contemplate, II necessary
to raise still higher, an extensive reser-
voir has been formed ab; and by the n aeal-
sary. they design to form, by q
dam to be constructed at the
outlet of Green Pond. an extra ana very
considerable supply of water will be IN
sured in times of drought, as well 10 inc
Morris Canal. as to the manufactorles
on the Rockaway and Passalc hlVers,
thereby obviating in a great degree, the
Inconvenience TO be -apprehended from a
Scarcity of water, during the summer
months" =. D.
porter, in 3 Stew, 145.
This insistment of the Canal has since
been made in many other litigations. Tor
Of Errors and Appeals in s. q. M, vs.. Lee
high Valley. 5 Stew, 1923. The Company
has never awaited itself of the right to
raise the dam at Green Pond.
Again, Tie GildltCCiioA ohio
of the Society against the Morris Canal
and Banking Company, reported IN Isl
Baxton, page 81 -
The Morris Canal, by using the bed OF
the Rockaway Ca branch of the PASSAGE
as part of their canal, introducing into IL
the waters brought from Lake Hopatcong
ana other sources, mingling them with
the waters of the R~ockaway, and on
leaving it. kin out waters to supply
their canal, which is not again returned
Into the stream before it passes to Pater-
son. do not injure the rights of the Socie-
~ for Establishing Useful Manufactures
at Paterson, provided they take out no
more water than they bring in, and the
flow of water at Paterson is not there
diminished. .
The Court held, that as a matter of
fact. the Canal Company did not take out
more water from the Rockaway than
they put in from Lake Hopatcong, and
therefore denied the injunction This has
been the insistment of the Canal Company
through all its litigation, until the cues
ton Of the rights of Jersey City were
involved.
In estimating the yield of the water
shed of the Rockaway River above Old
Roonton, in my bid, no account has been
taken whatever of the water coming from
lake Hopatcong. The watershed above
The intake dam comprises lis square miles,
which will yield in the driest period, with
the storage and flow as calculated by the
engineers of Jersey City, a daily supply
9f Is, 5S8, 600 gallons per day; to this should
be added, to obtain the actual flow of the
liver. the waters of Lake Hopatcong,