New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-22
THE WATER SUPPLY CRISIS

/ II seems not CXtravagant 10 regard the
danger of a crisis in respect to New
| York; water supply rs sufficiently I'M
m;ncnt 10 warrant prompt ana serious
consideration of such emergency meaS :
ures as may he necessary to protect this
city from what might be Il calamity of
anpallipc dimensions Months ago the
situation in the Croton Valley was dis
quietng. Ii has moi improved, but grown
much worse. To-day iherc is an alarm
| ing depletion Of the stored supply II is
uossibe that The beginning Of heavy
rains which will give adequate relief
may come at ANY time. but if must be
understood dat it would take many days
Of the heaviest precipitation TO restore
the reservoirs TO anything like normal
condition and TO avert danger Of disaS-
trouS scarcity of water in this city-an
amount Of precipitation which it is not
safe TO expect Under these circum-
stances prudent regard for the city's
welfare dictates energetic action TO Sc
cure an emergency supply for such time
as may clapse before nature makes the
Croton sufficient again or the Catskill
supply is made available.
The Mayor and other city officials have
revived the project Of securing water
from Ten Mile River. That stream lies
chiefly in New York State and is thus
legally accessible. IT could probably fur
ush as much as 100000 gallons n day
OF water Of satisfac Glory quality. which
would be enough TO exc out our supply
until that from Ashokan became avail
able. This addition 10 the flow Of the
Croton could he expeditiously secured at
comparatively little cost. II is com
petCntly estimated that the necessary
pipe line 10 turn the flow Of the Ten
Mile River into the CrotOn. or as much
Of ii rs was needed, could he con
structed in a few months at cost Of
about 81. 100000. or course a single
day of actual water famine in this city
might cost far more than that sum.
There are two considerations on the
other side Of the question. One Is that Of
tie citys liability for damages 10 rpa-
rian proprietors Oh the Ten Mile River
aud on the Housatonic, into which il
flcwS. The doctrine has frequently been
enuEciated in the courts, and may per-
haps be regarded as established that
riparian owners have vested right to
the full flow Of the stream, subject only
to the legitimate and local use of the
superior riparian OWncrS: Il doctrine
which i'm general seems logical and sa.u-
tary. But New York is not riparian
owner on Ten Mile River, and If ii were
is diversion OF water for consumption
ia Manhattan would not be legitimate
local use. The riparian owners down
stream from our intake might therefore
have valid claims against this city for
Indemnity for whatever injury they
might suffer from our Impairment of its
flow.
The other and more serious question
is that OF the willingness OF the State OF
Connecticut 10 permit New York under
ans circumstances 10 deplete the flow
Of the lIousatOnic. II has been in
timated. apparently with some author
itv. that the government Of Connecticut
would Immediately appeal 10 the courts
against any such action on New York's
part in which case legal delays would
probably make II impossible for this
city 10 secure The needed supply. sup
posing tile ultimate decision 10 be in its
favor. until the time Of lis necessity was
past. or course New York could not
expect permanently 10 injure the inter
est o. Connecticut along the lIouSa-
tonic. nor even to impair the use Of that
stream in any degree for any time with
ont making just compensation. But it
may be hoped that in view of the cx-