552 



NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



damage. The case presented, however, by the Syracuse water act 

 was claimed by the opponents of the scheme to be very different 

 in that it provided in effect — if the consent of the Canal Board be 

 obtained — that the entire flow of the catchment area be held at 

 the will of the city of Syracuse and without reference to the 

 rights of the riparian owners. Without stopping to discuss this 

 point at length, it may be pointed out in passing that the city of 

 Syracuse has taken measures to become possessed of all the water 

 rights on the stream, either by purchase or by condemnation, the 

 condemnation cases being in process at the present time. 



As a further technical objection, it was contended by the 

 opponents that the Syracuse water act did not provide for money 

 compensation, but for the construction of a storage reservoir to 

 furnish compensation in kind. The proposition advanced under 

 this head was that money, which is the only measure of damage 

 or value known in the commerce of the civilized world, was the 

 only proper compensation to make, the principle of water com- 

 pensation, as extensively developed abroad, apparently being un- 

 known to those opposing the Syracuse water act. 



After exhaustive hearings before the Oanal Board, in which 

 arguments of the opposition were strongly presented, the Canal 

 Board finally granted the permission authorized by the law passed 

 in 1889. 



Water-poicer development discouraged in Neiv York. We have, 

 therefore, the following contradictory conditions, tending to dis- 

 courage the development of waterpower existing in the State 

 of New York. Special mill acts applying to the northern part of 

 the State have been enacted, but there is no general mill act 

 applying to the entire State. [Since writing the foregoing, Senate 

 bill No. 679 of session of 1904, An Act to establish a permanent 

 commission for the regulation of the flow of watercourses in this 

 State in aid of public health and safety, to be known as the River 

 Improvement Commission, has received Executive approval]. On 

 Hudson and Mohawk rivers the State claims the right to the 

 waters, while on the Genesee river and other streams of the west 

 ern part of the State the English common law rule prevails. On 

 Seneca river there has been a controversy as to the water rights 

 extending from 1830 to the present time. Due to restrictive laws. 



