Wisconsin Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al.; Michigan Et Al. v. Same; And New York Et Al. v. Same
Headline: Court orders a Special Master to investigate delays building Chicago River control works and the Southwest Side Treatment Works, and to recommend steps and financing for enforcement affecting the Sanitary District and Illinois.
Holding: The Court referred the cases to a Special Master to investigate causes of construction delays on Chicago River works and the Southwest Side Treatment Works and to recommend steps, including financial measures, to enforce the 1930 decree.
- Orders investigation of construction delays and steps to compel prompt completion.
- Authorizes Special Master to subpoena witnesses, take evidence, and report recommendations by April 1, 1933.
- May lead to financial measures by Sanitary District or Illinois to carry out the decree.
Summary
Background
Several states, through their attorneys general (including Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan), brought enforcement actions against local authorities and Illinois to carry out a prior 1930 court decree about waterworks. After a rule issued October 10, 1932 required the defendants to explain delays, the Court considered the returns and arguments and acted to press the matter further by referral.
Reasoning
The Court’s immediate question was practical: why have key river control and treatment projects not moved forward, and what should be done now to get them approved, built, and paid for? The Court appointed Edward F. McClennen as a Special Master to make a quick factual inquiry and to report by April 1, 1933. The Special Master is empowered to take evidence, issue subpoenas (including choosing witnesses), administer oaths, employ clerical help, and recommend steps about construction and reasonable financial measures by the Sanitary District or the State of Illinois to carry out the 1930 decree.
Real world impact
The order starts a focused fact-finding and enforcement process that may speed approval and construction of controlling works in the Chicago River and the Southwest Side Treatment Works, or require an adequate substitute site. It may also lead to specific financial actions by the Sanitary District or Illinois to fund the work. This is a procedural enforcement step, not a final merits decision, and its recommendations will return to the Court for further action.
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?