The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-11-25
nrrnnnf az The hlvnr.inn

account ~ tho diversion M " Tho city
~ New York devoted TIC two actrs which
u owns NJ tho spring crock pumping sta
ton IN puoons county ~ any "f w." uses 10
which land ~ ordinarily applied, t"hhyit
would have lnI no legal claim against
M" 'i'y. NJ Wull"r how much ~. ~" ~ IT.
" bind injured hin 10y lowering tho
s"ubtctfaurnn water level on hi4 property
when, hangover. tho city occupies and
employs itttVp Hcras solely ~ draw water
from adjoining lands for The purpose ~
making sale - such water oi.unnncCt"d
entirely from the use ~ tho land for any
other object. IT. may not do thl' 20 IN" in
Jury Of tie land Of ncighbprlng propri"tor'
without making compensation for such
injury.
This - tho sum and substance of the
final adjudication IN what may well be
regarded "a two ~ tho most important
cases decided In recent years by our court
of last resort Tho broad principles upon
which the decision rests were first fully
stated by Mr.. Justice HATCH. In the court
NJ intermediate appeal; while the doctrine
which can now be deemed established Is adj
mirably set forth by Judge LANpoN in the
opinion Of the Court OF Appeals. where
he says:
" In the absence OF contract or enactment. what.
ever II Is reasonable for the owner TO do With his sub.
surface water, regard being had 10 the DEFINITE rights
~ others, he may do. lie may make the most OF u
that be reasonably can. Il Is no, unreasonable. 80
Tar a. II Is now appa rent TO US, tina. he should dis
wells and take ,heEciron all the water that he needs
IN order 10 lhe fullest enjoyment and usefulness Of
his land. as land. either for the purposes Of pleasure,
abode, ~produc,ls eness Of soil, trade. manufacture,
or for whatever else the land. as land. may serve.
lie may consume H. but must not discharge IL 70 the
Injury Of Others.
But TO NJ II up with wells and pumps Of such per
vas've and potential reach that from their base the
d~efendau; cAn tap the water stored In the plaintiffs
land. and In all the region thereabouL. and lead Is 10
his own land. and By merchandising Il prevent It's
return. is. however. reasonable as Il may appear 10
the defendant and is customers. unreasonable as
20 the plaintiff and the others whose lands are thus
elandesiinely Slapped. and tn cir value Impaired"
That no such dire results will flow from
this decision us some a!armists have pre-
dicted Is made manif est at the close Of the
opinion in these words:
" recognize the fac, ths, the water supply Of .
gfcAt city Is OF Vastly more lhpDrIhn &C lHhH ~ CtItIS
and watercresSes OF which the plaintiffs land was so
productive before the defendant encroached upon his
water supply. But the defendant can employ tho
right OF eminent domain and thus provide It's people
with water without Injustice 10 the plaintiff"
Where injunctions against the city are
granted, the Judgment will doubtless post
pone the operation OF the restraining order
until the law officers OF t q city have
an opportunity TO institute condemnation
proceedings or pay the injured landowner
FOR the property rights OF which he has been
deprived. This Is the method which has
been pursued in the elevated railroad
damage suits in this city. and there Ii no
reason to believe that he courts would
be less indulgent toward the municipal
government. acting in good faith. h
they have been toward the elevated rail-
road corporations.
1t must also be remembered that the
rule Of law laid down in these decisions
has been declared only in cases OF clear
legal night where the injury to the property
owner has been established by ample proof.
and that there Is little danger that any
claims will be recognized except those OF
an equally cogent character.