Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/349/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:28:55+00:00

Document:
The boundary line between private rights of property, which can only be limited on compensation by the exercise of eminent domain, and the police power of the state, which can limit such rights for the public interest, cannot be determined by any formula in advance, but points in that line helping to establish it have been fixed by decisions of the Court that concrete cases fall on the nearer or farther side thereof.
The state, as quasi-sovereign and representative of the interests of the public, has a standing in court to protect the atmosphere, the water, and the forests within its territory, irrespective of the assent or dissent of the private owners immediately concerned. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230.
The public interest is omnipresent wherever there is a state, and grows more pressing as population grows, and is paramount to private property of riparian proprietors whose rights of appropriation are subject not only to rights of lower owners but also to the limitations that great foundations of public health and welfare shall not be diminished.
A state has a constitutional power to insist that its natural advantages remain unimpaired by its citizens, and is not dependent upon any reason for its will so to do. In the exercise of this power, it may prohibit the diversion of the waters of its important streams to points outside of its boundaries.
One whose rights are subject to state restriction cannot remove them from the power of the state by making a contract about them, and a contract illegal when made -- such as one for diverting water from the state -- is not within the protection of the contract clause of the Constitution.
One cannot acquire a right to property by his desire to use it in commerce among the states.
Citizens of other states are not denied equal privileges within the meaning of the immunity clause of the Constitution by a statute forbidding the diversion of waters of the state if they are as free as the citizens of the state to purchase water within the boundaries of the state, nor can such a question be raised by a citizen of the state itself.
water of the state into any other state, is not unconstitutional either as depriving riparian owners of their property without due process of law, as impairing the obligation of contracts made by them for furnishing such water to persons without the state, as an interference with interstate commerce, or as denying equal privileges and immunities to citizen of other states.
"it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to transport or carry, through pipes, conduits, ditches, or canals the waters of any fresh water lake, pond, brook, creek, river, or stream of this state into any other state for use therein."
future demand, upon which the parties are not wholly agreed, but the essential facts are not denied. The defendant sets up that the statute, if applicable to it, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, that it impairs the obligation of contracts, takes property without due process of law, interferes with commerce between New Jersey and New York, denies the privileges of citizens of New Jersey to citizens of other states, and denies to them the equal protection of the laws. An injunction was issued by the chancellor, 70 N.J.Eq. 525, the decree was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals (70 N.J.Eq. 695), and the case then was brought here.
The court below assumed or decided, and we shall assume, that the defendant represents the rights of a riparian proprietor, and, on the other hand, that it represents no special chartered powers that give it greater rights than those. On these assumptions, the Court of Errors and Appeals pointed out that a riparian proprietor has no right to divert waters for more than a reasonable distance from the body of the stream or for other than the well known ordinary uses, and that for any purpose anywhere he is narrowly limited in amount. It went on to infer that his only right in the body of the stream is to have the flow continue, and that there is a residuum of public ownership in the state. It reinforced the state's rights by the state's title to the bed of the stream where flowed by the tide, and concluded from the foregoing and other considerations that, as against the rights of riparian owners merely as such, the state was warranted in prohibiting the acquisition of the title to water on a larger scale.
owners of the stream, on the ground that it authorized a suit by the state in their interest, where it does not appear that they all have released their rights. See Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 185 U. S. 142. But we prefer to put the authority, which cannot be denied to the state, upon a broader ground than that which was emphasized below, since, in our opinion, it is independent of the more or less attenuated residuum of title that the state may be said to possess.
All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. The limits set to property by other public interests present themselves as a branch of what is called the police power of the state. The boundary at which the conflicting interests balance cannot be determined by any general formula in advance, but points in the line, or helping to establish it, are fixed by decisions that this or that concrete case falls on the nearer or farther side. For instance, the police power may limit the height of buildings in a city, without compensation. To that extent, it cuts down what otherwise would be the rights of property. But if it should attempt to limit the height so far as to make an ordinary building lot wholly useless, the rights of property would prevail over the other public interest, and the police power would fail. To set such a limit would need compensation and the power of eminent domain.
It sometimes is difficult to fix boundary stones between the private right of property and the police power when, as in the case at bar, we know of few decisions that are very much in point. But it is recognized that the state, as quasi-sovereign and representative of the interests of the public, has a standing in court to protect the atmosphere, the water, and the forests within its territory, irrespective of the assent or dissent of the private owners of the land most immediately concerned. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 185 U. S. 141-142, s.c., 206 U. S. 206 U.S.
46, 206 U. S. 99; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 206 U. S. 238. What it may protect by suit in this Court from interference in the name of property outside of the state's jurisdiction, one would think that it could protect by statute from interference in the same name within. On this principle of public interest and the police power, and not merely as the inheritor of a royal prerogative, the state may make laws for the preservation of game, which seems a stronger case. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 161 U. S. 534.
The problems of irrigation have no place here. Leaving them on one side, it appears to us that few public interests are more obvious, indisputable, and independent of particular theory than the interest of the public of a state to maintain the rivers that are wholly within it substantially undiminished, except by such drafts upon them as the guardian of the public welfare may permit for the purpose of turning them to a more perfect use. This public interest is omnipresent wherever there is a state, and grows more pressing as population grows. It is fundamental, and we are of opinion that the private property of riparian proprietors cannot be supposed to have deeper roots. Whether it be said that such an interest justifies the cutting down by statute, without compensation, in the exercise of the police power, of what otherwise would be private rights of property, or that, apart from statute, those rights do not go to the height of what the defendant seeks to do, the result is the same. But we agree with the New Jersey courts, and think it quite beyond any rational view of riparian rights that an agreement, of no matter what private owners, could sanction the diversion of an important stream outside the boundaries of the state in which it flows. The private right to appropriate is subject not only to the rights of lower owners, but to the initial limitation that it may not substantially diminish one of the great foundations of public welfare and health.
unimpaired by its citizens is not dependent upon any nice estimate of the extent of present use or speculation as to future needs. The legal conception of the necessary is apt to be confined to somewhat rudimentary wants, and there are benefits from a great river that might escape a lawyer's view. But the state is not required to submit even to an aesthetic analysis. Any analysis may be inadequate. It finds itself in possession of what all admit to be a great public good, and what it has it may keep and give no one a reason for its will.
The defense under the Fourteenth Amendment is disposed of by what we have said. That under Article I, § 10, needs but a few words more. One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to state restriction cannot remove them from the power of the state by making a contract about them. The contract will carry with it the infirmity of the subject matter. Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 189 U. S. 434, 189 U. S. 438; Manigault v. Springs, 199 U. S. 473, 199 U. S. 480. But the contract the execution of which is sought to be prevented here was illegal when it was made.
to purchase as citizens of New Jersey. But this question does not concern the defendant, which is a New Jersey corporation. There is nothing else that needs mention. We are of opinion that the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals was right.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v.