State v. State
Headline: Great Lakes states win partial victory as Court limits Chicago’s Lake Michigan diversion, orders reduction and time to build sewage treatment to protect shipping, harbors, and waterfront property.
Holding: The Court holds that Illinois and the Sanitary District may not maintain the full 8,500 cubic feet per second diversion indefinitely; it orders reduction tied to new sewage treatment and remands a practical timetable to the Special Master.
- Limits Chicago’s ability to divert Great Lakes water without sewage treatment.
- Protects Great Lakes shipping and harbors from harmful lower water levels.
- Requires phased reduction as sewage treatment is constructed.
Summary
Background
Six states that border the Great Lakes (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) sued the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago. They asked a court order to stop Chicago’s withdrawal of about 8,500 cubic feet per second from Lake Michigan, saying it had lowered lake levels and harmed navigation, harbors, resorts, fishing, parks, and riparian property. The case was sent to Special Master Charles Evans Hughes, who held hearings and reported facts and recommendations to the Court.
Reasoning
The Court examined whether the Secretary of War’s March 3, 1925 permit (allowing an annual average diversion of 8,500 cubic feet per second, with an 11,000 instantaneous maximum) lawfully authorized the diversion. The Master found the diversion had lowered Lakes Michigan and Huron about six inches and Lakes Erie and Ontario about five inches, causing commercial and navigational injury. The Court said the Secretary’s permit was temporary and conditional and had been issued largely to prevent immediate navigation harm caused when the Sanitary District exceeded prior limits and failed to install sewage plants.
Real world impact
The Court ruled that the unwarranted part of the diversion must end, but ordered relief fashioned to avoid sudden harm to public health. The Sanitary District must build and operate sewage treatment and other means of disposal, while the diversion is reduced in stages as treatment comes online. The case was sent back to the Master to hear experts and propose a practical timetable and a form of court order to implement the reduction.
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?