Connecticut v. Massachusetts

Supreme Court of the United States · 1931 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsOriginal JurisdictionInterstate Water RightsEquitable Apportionmentinterstate streamsequitable apportionmentoriginal actioninjunction

Facts

Massachusetts legislation authorized diversion of flood waters from the Ware River and certain waters from the Swift River into the Wachusett reservoir to supply Boston and surrounding communities facing a serious future water shortage. The Ware and Swift are nonnavigable Massachusetts tributaries of the Chicopee, which flows into the Connecticut River above Springfield. Connecticut alleged that removing this water from the Connecticut watershed would impair navigation, reduce beneficial flooding of agricultural lands, harm future hydropower development, affect fish, and worsen pollution. The special master found that the diversions, as limited by the Secretary of War and as Massachusetts said it would follow, would amount to about a two percent average yearly subtraction at the state line, would not perceptibly or materially interfere with navigation, and had not been shown by clear evidence to cause substantial injury to Connecticut.

Issue

May the Supreme Court enjoin Massachusetts from diverting waters of interstate tributaries where Connecticut relies on common-law riparian principles and claims injury to navigation, agriculture, power, fish, and pollution? More specifically, did Connecticut show by the required degree of proof a presently threatened invasion of rights of serious magnitude warranting extraordinary relief against another state?

Rule

In controversies between states over the use of interstate waters, the Court does not treat either state's municipal law of riparian rights as controlling. Instead, it determines rights on the basis of equality of right and applies principles of right and equity to reach an equitable apportionment; and the Court will not exercise its extraordinary power to control one state at the suit of another unless the threatened invasion of rights is of serious magnitude and established by clear and convincing evidence. Injunction will not issue for merely possible future injury, but only for actual or presently threatened interference.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado authorizes Front Range Water Board, a fictional regional utility, to divert water from a nonnavigable tributary that eventually flows into the Platte River and then into Nebraska. Nebraska sues, arguing that because both states generally recognize riparian-style restrictions in disputes among private landowners, any out-of-basin diversion is automatically unlawful in an interstate controversy.

What is the strongest response under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. In an interstate dispute between states over shared waters, the Court does not treat either state's internal riparian doctrine as controlling. The majority said such controversies are resolved on the basis of equality of right, meaning equitable treatment on the equal plane of the states, not mechanical application of municipal law and not an automatic equal division of water.