Conservation Commission. 51 



for the purpose of carrying on the work. This improvement was 

 actually being carried out and the work was proceeding for the 

 evident betterment of conditions in the valley, when other property 

 owners attacked the proceedings and the powers of the Commis- 

 sion, claiming not only that their property was not benefited, 

 but that the whole scheme of the Commission was illegal and void. 



The action of the Commission was reviewed by a writ of certi- 

 orari, and the proceedings thereunder were heard at Special Term 

 of the Supreme Court in Livingston county, resulting in a deci- 

 sion against the State Water Supply Commission, setting aside 

 the plan of improvement and its determination in establishing 

 the so-called assessment district. 



This was the condition of the litigation when the present 

 Commission took office. An appeal was promptly taken by this 

 Commission through its counsel to the Appellate Division of the 

 Supreme Court, Fourth Department, with the result that a sweep- 

 ing decision was rendered by the Appellate Division, reversing 

 the decision at Special Term and sustaining the powers of the 

 Conservation Commission to take property and levy assessments 

 for the purpose of river improvement where health or safety 

 demanded. 



In its opinion rendered in November, 1912, the court held 

 that the Commission had the broadest power and discretion to 

 determine the necessity for the improvement in the interest of 

 public health and safety, and that in the exercise of that broad 

 discretion the Commission could carry out the improvement in 

 such way and by such methods as would make the improvement 

 most effective and the cost thereof most reasonable. The court 

 not only sustained the power of the State to assess for benefits 

 of such improvement on the lands of unwilling property owners, 

 but held also that where the improvement would result in an in- 

 crease in the value and productiveness of agricultural lands, such 

 value and productiveness was a proper basis for assessment. 



All of which is respectfully submitted. 



GEOKGE E. VAN KENNEN, 

 JAMES W. FLEMING, 

 JOHN D. MOOEE, 



Conservation Commissioners. 

 Albany, N. Y., January 15, 1913. 



