Connecticut v. Massachusetts
51 S. Ct. 286, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 34, 282 U.S. 660 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a dispute between states over an interstate stream, the Court will apply the doctrine of equitable apportionment, and an injunction will not be granted unless the complaining state can show by clear and convincing evidence that the diversion will cause real and substantial injury of serious magnitude.
Facts:
- Massachusetts, facing a serious water shortage for Boston and its surrounding metropolitan area, enacted legislation to divert water from the Ware and Swift rivers.
- The Ware and Swift rivers are non-navigable streams located entirely within Massachusetts and are tributaries of the Chicopee River, which flows into the Connecticut River.
- The Connecticut River flows from New Hampshire, through Massachusetts, and then through Connecticut before emptying into Long Island Sound.
- Connecticut alleged that the proposed diversion would impair navigation, damage agricultural lands by reducing seasonal flooding, diminish potential hydroelectric power, harm fish populations, and increase pollution.
- The Secretary of War authorized the diversion but imposed limitations, requiring the release of specified amounts of water back into the river system during low-flow periods to mitigate downstream effects.
- The total diversion authorized represents approximately two percent of the Connecticut River's average yearly flow at the state line.
- Alternative water sources for Boston, such as the Merrimack River, were found to be of inferior quality due to significant pollution that Massachusetts could not control.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Connecticut filed a suit directly in the U.S. Supreme Court against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the Court's original jurisdiction.
- Connecticut sought a permanent injunction to prevent Massachusetts from diverting water from the Ware and Swift rivers.
- The Supreme Court appointed a special master to take evidence and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The special master issued a report recommending that Connecticut's request for an injunction be denied and the bill of complaint be dismissed.
- Connecticut filed numerous exceptions to the special master's report, bringing the case before the full Supreme Court for argument and final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Massachusetts' proposed diversion of water from non-navigable tributaries of the Connecticut River, for the purpose of supplying water to Boston, constitute an invasion of Connecticut's rights that warrants an injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Butler
No, Massachusetts' proposed diversion does not violate Connecticut's rights because Connecticut failed to meet its high burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would suffer any real or substantial injury. Disputes between states over interstate streams are not governed by the common law of riparian rights, but by the principle of equitable apportionment, which requires a balancing of interests. Here, the evidence shows that the diversion will not materially interfere with navigation, agriculture, or power generation, nor will it perceptibly increase pollution. Massachusetts' need for wholesome drinking water, the highest use of water, is substantial and outweighs the speculative and minimal harms alleged by Connecticut. The Court will not issue an injunction to prevent injuries that are merely feared or might occur at some indefinite future time.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of equitable apportionment as the guiding principle for resolving interstate water disputes, rejecting a rigid application of common-law riparian rights. It establishes an exceptionally high evidentiary standard for a state seeking an injunction, requiring clear and convincing proof of a substantial injury of serious magnitude. The decision emphasizes a pragmatic balancing of equities, weighing the demonstrable needs of one state against the potential harms to another, a framework that has become central to resolving all types of interstate resource conflicts. This approach grants the Court significant flexibility but makes it very difficult for a downstream state to prevent an upstream state's water development projects.
