Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter
Headline: State law banning the export of fresh water upheld, blocking a New Jersey company from sending Passaic River water to New York and making interstate water transfers harder.
Holding:
- Lets states block large-scale export of fresh surface water to other states.
- Makes contracts to send state river water out-of-state unenforceable if illegal under state law.
- Allows courts to issue injunctions stopping companies from carrying municipal water across state lines.
Summary
Background
A New Jersey water company built mains and contracted to take water from the Passaic River at Little Falls to supply Staten Island in New York, promising at least three million gallons a day. After the company made a contract to furnish that supply, New Jersey enacted a 1905 law making it illegal to carry fresh water out of the State. The State brought suit seeking an injunction to stop the company from exporting the river water, and New Jersey courts granted and affirmed that injunction.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether New Jersey may stop large-scale removal of its fresh river water despite the company’s contract. It said the State has a fundamental public interest in preserving rivers and may, under its police power, prevent substantial diversions that would harm public welfare and health. The opinion explained that private riparian rights are limited and cannot be used to defeat that public interest. The Court rejected the company’s constitutional defenses, holding the contract was illegal when made and that arguments under the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal contract clause, interstate commerce, and equal privileges did not prevent the State from enforcing the law.
Real world impact
The ruling allows New Jersey to block large-scale transfers of its fresh surface water to other states and to enjoin companies that try to export it. For cities and suppliers, it means contracts to deliver state river water across state lines can be unenforceable if they violate state law, and states retain strong power to protect in-state water resources.
Dissents or concurrances
One Justice, McKenna, dissented; the Court’s opinion does not set out his separate reasoning in detail.
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?