Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-20

1OA%i " AACto0N AOA Rot PO1@S -
navigation. In furnishing and supply
ing the inhabitants of any city. town
or village along the line of said canal
or in the vicinity thereof, with n
sufficient quantity OF pure and whole
some water for manufacturing or do
nestle or other uses; and to make
contracts with the corporate authori-
ties Of any such city, town or village,
or with individuals. for such supply
Of water. Provided, that
nothing herein contained shall be held
to authorize the diversion of the aid
canal from the purposes OF naylga-
ton"
Just what WAS meant by surplus
waters may be a matter of debate.
The subject of water rights in New
Jersey was not as we'll understood in
1871 as it now is: but it was thought
that In some way the Canal Company
might be authorized to use and sell the
superabundance of water which was
noticeable in the streams where it was
taking water. Probably the scheme
could not have beer carried out with
out making compensation to the ripar-
Ian owners below for this diversion for
Z new purpose. but this was never
R'uSht ~ u AcSl, LOT liie StlieItle VIE
never carried out. Paterson and Pas
sale We're taking their water from the
Passaic River below the Cana Com
pany's intake, as We're also Jersey City,
Newark and other towns: and the ques-
ton did not come up for settlement at
all until 1883. when Newark. by reason
of the pollution OF its supply of Pas
sale water taken at BelleVille, deter
. gafI1n1 -. ne F.,pFf,1. -. 4a.. -.
vas then thought that the Morris
Canal was an important factor In tho
problem because of this provision of
the Act of 1871. In 1888 Newark caused
TO be passed the General Water Act
(P. l.. 1883, p. 1861, enabling munich
palities to contract for a water supply.
The Legislature simultaneously passed
Up. L. p. 5000 an Act authorizing canal
companies to abandon navigation ON
their canals. This WAS undoubtedly
intended TO erfable the Morris Canal
Company to abandon navigation,
the uselessness of the Canal
having been already demonstrated; and
this Act was passed for the further
reason that the Canal Company with
It's water rights and It's rlght-of-Way
could assist in solving the problem OF
getting the water for Newark and
other towns. SO impressed were the
people having TO do with water matters
of that day with the necessity of OBJ
tanning the Morris Canal rights that
the Newark contract, which was made
September "a. 1889, was made with the
Lehigh Valley Railroad Company,
Lessee of the Canal, and the East Jcr-
sey Water Company. a corporation
formed for the purpose of carrying out
the contract. The first article In the
contract was an assignment by tbs
railroad company TO the East Jersey
Water Company OF so much of the
waters as might be necessary to enable
II to supply Newark. The East Jersey
Water Company proceeded to con-
struct works, but 1t was soon found
that the Canal Company had little or
nothing which was really available for
the work. An independent right OF
way was acquired and waters were
take. from the Pequannock River in a
way which really not al all materially
interfered with the canal operation.
The Canal Company's right to divert
waters from the streams was doubtless
nothing more than q right 10 divert for
canal navigation purposes, and upon
the abandonment of the Canal they
will Flow back into their ancient chan
nels, the Musconetcong, the Rockawayr
the Pompton and the Passaic Rivers,
and will flow down the same as they
flowed In 1881. before the Canal COM
menced to use them. The mere aband-
onment OF the canal would eliminate
all water right question so far as al
version Is concerned.
At Lake Hopateong and Greenwood
Lake a somewhat singular situation
arises. The Canal Company owns the
dam and a large tract OF LAND at the
outlet of Lake Hopatcong in fee simple,
and owns a good many acres OF the
land under the waters Of the Lake. 1t
has iowage rights, certainly for canal
purposes If not for other purposes
around the shore OF the Lake. The
owners have built cottages and do not
want the dam taken down when the
Canal is abandoned, but want 1t for
ever kept up 80 that the water will
stand higher. The Canal Company
has been accustomed to draw down the
Lake about four to six feet each sum
mer, according TO the dryness OF the
season, and tho owners prefer to have
IL ~ idtilNi man " HoNp NNo 0oiiA AOAb
down and the Lake permanently drawn
down to its old level.
At Greenwood Lake a similar sltua-
tton exists. The Canal Company owns
the dam. about six hundred acres OF
the flowed land, and the right to flow
as against many. If not all, of the
shore owners. The draught on this
Lake rarely exceeds six feet in any
season. The owners around the Lake
likewise want this dam kept up.
In both cases the absolute title OF the
Canal Company TO Its dams Is unques-
tionable and It's right TO take down the
dams Is u%ndoubted. Probably its right
to keep them mp will be found to be
equally clear. The dams ought not to
be taken down, but maintained as de,
sired by the shore owners OF the lakes,
and for the other value they have.
which 1t would be folly to waste ana
throw away. Hopatcong is less valu-
able than Greenwood Lake. The rea-
sonable maintenance Of the water OF
Hopatcong for the protection OF the
cottage owners is desirable, and the
stored water has some (but not very
great) value for the use OF mill and
power plants which may be built along
the Musconetcong River. The amount
of storage which might be drawn for
power would of course be limited If
the level OF the water III the lake is to
n. -oo.n,,nb1s naoipfafpad fap tho 81