Evening star., 1933-06-07

| Decision of the United States Su-
preme Court that the State OF Illinois
must accept the responsibility Tor delay
| bv the city of Chicago in preparing to
| reduce the diversion of water from Lake
Michigan through the city drainage
canal may, the public believes, AFFECT
other States. The lake city has been
| ordered by the court to reduce the
! amount of water taken, and TINS m
wolves expense Of $l39,0OO,OO0 1or con-
struction of a Chicago sewage plant.
! Chicago is unable to raise the money,
, and the State will have heavy burden,
! though the possibility of aid from the
Federal Finance Corporation Is sug-
| gested.
There is no clear way" according to
| the Chicago Tribune, lin which the
people of the State can find the money
! in time to satisfy the courts mandate
The Tribune adds: This compuiSlon
throws the obligation upon FEDERAL
| revenue. =. The right to Federal
| funds to meet Federal requirements Is
apparent. Money for the sewage as
posal plants must be supplied oy lne
r, F. C. or from some other FeoeraI
distributive fund.
Observing that the Chicago sanitary
district sis in financial stralts tne
New Orleans Times-Picayune relers W
the complaints of neighboring states
which initiated court action ana states.
| THE appeal of those States has Deen
granted despite the Illinois contention,
frst that it should not be held re-
snonsible for the sanitary districts oD-
ligation-and, second, that 1t Is unaole
to raise the necessary funds. To the
representation that Illinois cannot pro-
vide this money, the court OF last re-
sort replied: Despite existing economic
dif7culties, the State has adequate re-
sources. and we find 1t lmposSlDie W
conclude that the State cannot oeVise
appropriate and adequate nnancial M
measures g = to the end that lts
nhiioation as adjudged by this
court shall be properly discharged,
Recalling that the complainantS were
Michigan. Minnesota, ONO ana WlSeuio
sin. and that the requirement Is loa 'iio to
reduction of the diversion OF water "
500 cubic second-feet by December 81,
io38 the Buffalo Evening News of1ers
the explanation: This project mas
not gone ahead as fast as 1t should CO.
and the contesting States, which repre-
cent that water levels have been re-
duced bv the Chicago diversion to the
detriment of shipping on the Great
lakes asked the Supreme Court 10
take steps to see that its orders were
carried out to the letter ana on tiine.
since the sanitary district Is the clea
ton of the State OF LIMOS tne coui'
,,liance with the orders" With ref
erence to the effect Of the decision on
other states. the Evening News says;
"On the strength of the ruling II wouio
seem as If the State of New YORK woulo
ha held responsible for the failure OF,
saw Buffalo, to comply with an order
to cease polluting the water courses
with its sewage OF particular interest,"
is the case of New YORK CITY. Wnicn
the Supreme Court. acting ON compialnt
of the State of New Jersey, put uhoer
orders to cease dumping garpas g.e aS So 1u"
and so befouling New Jerseys sum
mer playground beaches. New YORK
CITY has been slow to comply with the
orders of the court, and New Jersey
wants to know what's to be done ABOUT
the matter. In view of the decision IN
the Chicago case, it may be expected
that the court will rule that the state
of New York Is responsible"
1.-THE Chicago sanitary district,
charges the Rochester Times Union
spent lot of money during the nusn
days of Cook County politics. but very
little of it went to creating sewage
raise any more money In its review |
of the subject the Times-Union de-
clares: This decision helps along the
st. Lawrence waterways treaty, tc
which Illinois was objecting because 1t
embodied this same restriction on the |
amount Of water diverted from Lake
Michigan by TIN Nsanitary canal. New /
York State andle,, lake cities also havt
an interest in the amount OF wate-
taken from the Great Lakes Chicag, |
began with a modest diversion anc
kept increasing It until II was severn. [