Wisconsin v. Illinois
Headline: Court orders Illinois to fund and finish Chicago-area sewage treatment and controlling river works, expanding an earlier decree and forcing state action to protect other states’ water and public health.
Holding:
- Requires Illinois to raise and provide funds to complete sewage treatment works.
- Orders state to build controlling works to prevent Chicago River reversals if necessary.
- Sets deadline for Illinois to report actions to the Court by October 2, 1933.
Summary
Background
Complainant States — Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and Michigan — asked the Court to enforce its April 21, 1930 decree that reduced diversion of Lake Michigan water and required sewage treatment by the Sanitary District of Chicago. The States complained the Sanitary District and Illinois delayed construction of required works, risking health and the agreed reductions. The Court appointed Special Master Edward F. McClennen to investigate causes of delay and recommend steps to secure completion.
Reasoning
The Master found inexcusable failures: no application to the Secretary of War for controlling works, a planned postponement of construction, failure to choose or acquire a site, and lack of designs. He also found the Sanitary District unable to raise money because its bonds were unmarketable and it could not levy sufficient taxes. The Court held the Sanitary District is an instrumentality of Illinois, so the State bears primary responsibility. The Court rejected contentions that a 1930 Rivers and Harbors Act or a pending treaty changed the decree, and concluded nothing had been done to relieve Illinois of its duty.
Real world impact
The Court enlarged the decree to require Illinois to take all necessary steps, including raising and providing funds, to complete adequate sewage treatment plants, sewers, and any controlling works needed to prevent Chicago River reversals. Illinois must file a report with the Court by October 2, 1933. Costs and Special Master expenses are taxable against defendants. The order enforces the earlier decree and compels state action rather than reopening the underlying liability.
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?