Connecticut v. Massachusetts
Headline: Massachusetts may divert limited Ware and Swift rivers to supply Boston; Court rejects Connecticut’s request to block those diversions while preserving Connecticut’s right to sue if diversions increase.
Holding: The Court dismissed Connecticut’s suit and refused to enjoin Massachusetts from diverting specified Ware and Swift waters as authorized and limited by state laws and the War Department, finding no present substantial injury shown.
- Allows Massachusetts to divert Ware and Swift waters to supply Boston within War Department limits.
- Permits Boston region to secure significant additional water without immediate state court blockage.
- Lets Connecticut sue later if diversions materially increase beyond authorized amounts.
Summary
Background
The State of Connecticut sued to stop Massachusetts from diverting water from the Ware and Swift rivers into a reservoir that would serve Boston and nearby towns. Connecticut said the take would reduce river flow into its State, harm navigation, damage flood-dependent farmland, hurt fish runs, and threaten future power development at King’s Island. Massachusetts relied on state laws authorizing the project and on limits set by the Secretary of War, and the Court appointed a special master to hear evidence and report findings.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the planned diversions would now cause serious, proven harm to Connecticut that would justify a court order to stop them. The master found Boston faces a real water shortage, the proposed take is small compared with overall river flow, and the Secretary of War had limited diversions to reduce harm. The Court held Connecticut had not shown clear and convincing evidence of present or imminent substantial injury. Potential future harms, speculative power projects, or possible expansion were not enough to warrant stopping the project now.
Real world impact
As a result, Massachusetts may proceed with the Ware–Swift diversions within the limits of its laws and the War Department’s conditions, giving Boston the additional water supply it needs. Connecticut’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, so it may bring a new suit if Massachusetts materially increases diversions beyond the authorized amounts. Costs were divided between the States and the master’s expenses shared.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?