Illinois v. Michigan

PETITIONER: Illinois
RESPONDENT: Michigan
LOCATION: Union Station

DOCKET NO.: 15 ORIG
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 360 US 712 (1959)
ARGUED: May 21, 1959 / May 22, 1959
DECIDED: Jun 29, 1959

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Illinois v. Michigan

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 22, 1959 in Illinois v. Michigan

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 21, 1959 in Illinois v. Michigan

Earl Warren:

Number 15, Original, State of Illinois, Plaintiff, versus States of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin.

Mr. Bane, you may proceed.

Charles A. Bane:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

Illinois is here seeking leave to file a complaint for a declaratory judgment and an injunction whereby it is asking that this Court declare Illinois' rights to take an imperceptibly small amount of water from Lake Michigan through the State's instrumentality, the Elmhurst-Villa Park-Lombard Water Commission.

The matter we maintain is one of immediate urgency in order to meet the needs of approximately 90,000 people to be served by the commission with water for drinking, hygienic, sanitary and life and industrial-commercial purposes, all of which can be aggregated under the phrase, "domestic pumpage."

The amount which is proposed to be taken over the next 20 years will be about at the level of 25 to 30 cubic feet per second, which is the manner in which you measure taking of water and if that amount is expected to grow, so that by the year 2000, it will still be only in the range of about 50 cubic feet per second.

Potter Stewart:

Did you include industrial purposes or (Voice Overlap) --

Charles A. Bane:

Light industrial purposes, Your Honor, yes.

There is no heavy industrial activity in this area, or which will be served by the commission.

Potter Stewart:

What -- what makes the difference?

Charles A. Bane:

Sir?

Potter Stewart:

What makes the difference between light --

Charles A. Bane:

Between light and heavy industrial?

Well, we simply don't have anything in the nature of a steel works, anything -- an automobile assembly plant, nothing that would be in the -- in that range.

I think the distinction is probably not important except that Justice Holmes, in Wisconsin against Illinois, expressed the general kind of reservation as to whether domestic pumpage purposes would include heavy industrial use.

That's the only reason that we make the point that it is light industrial use indubitably, as we've alleged in our complaint, which is involved here and which is in this area.

Potter Stewart:

Do any of the -- do any of the municipalities involved have zoning that would permit heavy industry?

Charles A. Bane:

Well, I'm not sure that I can answer that, Your Honor.

Potter Stewart:

All they think were not the old cases.

Charles A. Bane:

I think that is -- I think that is probably so.

However, the -- the nature of the communities now is primarily really residential as we've alleged in our complaint.

There is a commercial operation, of course, in connection with the residential character of its community.

The light -- the industrial activity is really only incidental.

These communities are residential communities within the Chicago suburban area.

They are commuter communities, if you please, with some incidental commercial and industrial activity.

Potter Stewart:

So-called, "dormitory community?"

Charles A. Bane:

Yes, sir.

William O. Douglas:

What was the -- what was the pumpage for water supply in the 1930 decree?

As I remember that was 1700 cubic feet per second.

Charles A. Bane:

In the 1930 decree, Your Honor, the City of Chicago was ultimately to be restrained, I think, beginning with the year 1938 to 1500 cubic feet per second as direct diversion.