Minnesota. Attorney General

These cases had their genesis in a bill of complaint filed with the United States Supreme Court by the state of Wisconsin in 1922, seeking an injunction to restrain the state of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago from diverting water from Lake Michigan through the Chicago River into the Des Plaines River and ultimately the Mississippi. This linkage, completed in 1900, not only facilitated navigation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River waterways system, but also provided a discharge outlet for Chicago's sewage. However, for several years prior to 1922, the Sanitary District had been diverting considerably more water than its permit allowed. A new permit (1925) allowed an increased diversion, conditional upon the development of a program for treating sewage and controlling storm runoff.

In 1925 the state of Wisconsin filed an amended bill of complaint, with Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as additional plaintiffs. In 1926 the states of Michigan and New York filed similar complaints. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi were permitted to intervene as defendant parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the diversions of water from Lake Michigan, the levels of the other Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River had been lowered to an extent that seriously diminished the utility of the lake ports and reduced the amount of cargo that lake vessels could carry between these ports. Thus, they argued, the rights of the plaintiff states and various riparian owners to enjoy full use of these naturally navigable waterways and their attendant facilities had been violated.

A series of court decrees and injunctions, complaints, counter-suits, four inquiries and reports by special masters with assorted objections thereto, and various permits regulating diversion amounts and conditions ensued between the years 1926 and 1939. They focused on the court's findings that the diversion did indeed lower lake levels and cause substantial damage to navigation, commercial, and recreational interests and that it was without legal basis, but that for public health reasons it should continue until the Sanitary District completed adequate sewage treatment works. These were completed in 1940, although occasional flowage problems occurred in subsequent years.

In 1957-1959, another round of suits and counter-suits was initiated, focusing on the state of Illinois' wish to withdraw increased amounts of water from Lake Michigan for domestic use, counterposed against the joint plaintiffs' attempts to obtain continued restrictions on the diversion and to require that treated effluent be returned to the lake. Albert B. Maris was appointed special master to reevaluate the needs of all parties, take evidence, and submit a report. He held 37 hearings between October 1959 and July 1963, and inspected the harbors and facilities affected by the suits. His final report, published in December 1966, concluded that the current diversion of 3200 cfs was adequate for Illinois' needs, that additional diversions would damage the rights and interests of the plaintiffs, and that Illinois was therefore not entitled to increase its diversions solely for purposes of diluting its sewage.

A detailed review of the history of these cases is found in the special master's report (box 11) and among the historical data (box 12). The Minnesota Historical Society Library holds a number of related publications by or about the Chicago Sanitary District.

From the guide to the Case files. Wisconsin vs. Illinois, 1959-1966., (Minnesota Historical Society)