New-York tribune., 1906-05-07
OPINIONS ON WATER.
WHAT BARTLETT THINKS.
Little Use in Commissions Says
Former East ,Jersey Man.


ola water question in Few form The courts have
under consideration, on appeal. the question OF
the right to divert the Of the state and sell
1t to the municipalities Of other states. Why all
this investigation is about to take place Just now
Is hard to understand Nearly twenty years ago
the entire water question in all its phases was
gone over under the supervision and at the ex-
pense OF John K. Bartlett. Of New York
Mr.. Bartlett was the promoter and originator OF
the East Jersey Water Company When he had
acquired the rights now possessed by the East
Jersey company Gncluding the valuable and UNIQUE
privileges granted by the Legislature more than
hundred years ago to the Society for Establish
ing Useful Manufactures. at tho instgation OF
Alexander Hamilton and his associates). and had
secured the contract between the East Jersey.
Lehigh Valley Railroad and the city Of Newark.
he disposed of his and took some other
enterprise.
But Mr.. Bartlett studied the subject thoroughly.
and to-day undoubtedly is better posted than any
individual in New York New Jersey the
water problem. In addition to a thorough per-
sonal inspection Of the watershed here and in New
York Mr.. Bartlett obtained the written opinions
of the most prominent lawyers in this state on the
legGl aspects Of the question. He has filed away
in his Office the opinions of such eminent coun-
sellors as the late Chancellor Runyon, the late
Barker Gummere. Of Trenton; the late Judge Bedle
and others
While Mr. Bartlett has been occupied with big
enterprises of another kind. beth in New York and
in London. since the water deal was consummated
here his memory is good, and though not familiar
with all the recent moves in connection with water
supplies in this state has the fundamental prin
cipes at his tongues end and is astonished at the
lack Of information that prevails this great
subject
SOME OF MR.. BARTLETTS VIEWS.
The Tribune representative called on Mr.. Bartlett
OF his office at No. Wall street. New York. the
other day. and put some questions to him. 70 which
he dictated replies. Here is the interview by
question and answer:
o.-Can you tell the the State Of New
Jersey appointed the present Water Commission;
plish? Al have been absent from New York
many years and have not kept in touch touch With New
for the appointment of such committee II is dhi-
the notable water in the state is matter OF record
which the state can take by condemnation ana pay
doubt the owners viii be glad TO sell This involves
the question: Is the state going into the water
Q.~can the State of New Jersey or any Of the
the present owners @ OF OF % 1ate9 ~ the e
State Of New Jersey any of the cities or towns
can take any water from any OF the private owners
except by exercise Of the right Of eminent domain
and the payment of adequate compensation there
Q.-Does the state Of New Jersev own or have
srsams 9s96 or lakes Of the state? AThs state Of
New Jersey does not % own or control any Of the
the state. The water referred to is a property
right and the st state eanaS5 S m here Wn PTlate nT S
into the water business. II So 1t would have to
namely try TO agree with the private owner as to
the price to be paid II they agree all right II they
Of eminent domain and proceed in a legal manner
awarded by the commissioners appointed 70 ap-
praise its market value
Since there are no navigable waters entirely
within the state with the exception Of the lower
part Of the Passac and as. according TO Mr. Bart
lett II is well settled that the state can acquire no
rights in lakes ponds or non-navigable streams
except those held by the present owners. he does
understand the object of ascertaining II It can
be done how much potable water there is that
could be drawn upon when the population increases
1T seems to me-" said the water veteran, that
the Legislature might as we'll appoint commission
TO discover how many potatoes are grown and how
many more could be raised for the benefit OF our
children and grandchildren"
WHAT THEODORE RUNYON THOUGHT.
OF all the legal opinions which Mr. Bartlett OBJ
tained when he was studying the water question. he
considers that OF the late Theodore Runyon to be
the ablest and clearest 1t certainly is succinct and
condensed and readily understood.
The opinion, which was addressed to Mr.. Bartlett
on October u. 1885. is follows:
You ask my opinion upon the following questions:
First-Can the State Of New York. the city OF
state divert by condemnation proceedings or other
WSe without the consent Of riparian propTetors in
or other streams having their in the State
Of New York and flowing into the State of New
Jersey, so that by reason of such diversion riparian
PrqpTieors on the Passaic River or any Of its said
pTIved OF the natural flow of said rivers?
New Jersey. such as the Montclair Water Com
pany. divert from the State Of New Jersey New
purchase and by contracts full title to such water
below the point of diversion on the river? Can
fere TO prevent such diversion to the city OF New
waters have contracts, permitting such diversion
Third-Could the cities of Newark. Jersey City or
any other municipality dependent upon the Passaic
watershed for its supplies of water interfere with
New York water through the state provided the
amount Of water diverted to the city Of New YORK
State New York does not interfere with the
ample supplies provided for said cities and towns
Fourth-Does the State of New Jersey own or
the non-navigable rivers and streams within the
state boundaries the property OF It's citizens and
control of same except by the exercise Of the
bs ~, OF dc 9 zen bsa ~ me @ SAM a ra1arty ~
To the first question I answer:
RIGHT OF THE RIPARIAN OWNER.
The right of a riparian owner in New Jersey to
have the water in the stream (which flows from
cfaG y, 70 ,b @ Stt oS Ne YS- nv Sqye2siag
and the tetself cannot lawfully either divert or
fhe New Jersey riparian owner By the exercise Of
the right Of eminent domain the state Of New
vioUsly II cannot take the property Of citizens OF
other states outside Of its limits, The right OF the
New Jersey riparian owner to the water is prop
erty right, and while the State Of New York may
riparian owner there It can AFFECT only What he
owns-his rights, whatever they may be.
To the second question ] answer: A.. =.
The qwReT Of water Sd in b New Jersey may divert i
t s astio1 1st and the Igfsiature cannot preyent
him from doing except by the exercise Of the
under y the law under which the Montclar Water
Company was created would be bound TO provide |
supply which II was established as primary |