Empire State Railroad v. State

133 Misc. 6, 231 N.Y.S. 36, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1081
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedOctober 18, 1928
DocketClaim No. 2495-A
StatusPublished

This text of 133 Misc. 6 (Empire State Railroad v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Empire State Railroad v. State, 133 Misc. 6, 231 N.Y.S. 36, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1081 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Opinion

Gibson, J.

This claim was filed by Empire United Railways, Inc., and upon a stipulation reciting that the interest of the said corporation had passed to Empire State Railroad Corporation an order was made on Feburary 24, 1919, substituting the latter as party claimant. By a stipulation dated September 4, 1928, the issues were submitted to the Court of Claims as now constituted for determination.

The claim is for the flooding of the roadbed and tracks of claimant’s predecessor in March and April, 1914, by the waters of Onondaga lake by reason of “ the raising by the State of the height of the dam across the Oswego River at Phoenix, N. Y., and by keeping the gates closed in the same by the State, and by the maintenance and operation by the State of said dam at said increased height, and with said gates closed.” Claimant attempted to amend its claim after trial and incorporate therein as a further cause of the flooding the interference by the State with the flow of the water in the Oswego and Seneca rivers above said Phoenix dam and nearer the sources of said streams. Its motion to amend was denied (113 Mise. 238), and upon appeal the order of this court wus affirmed (196 App. Div. 922).

Claimant's predecessor operated a trolley line from Syracuse to [7]*7Oswego, a distance of about thirty-seven miles. For a part of the way its tracks ran along the west shore of Onondaga lake. In the early part of April, 1914, the waters of the lake rose to such a height that they spread out over the upland and flooded 9,250 lineal feet of the trolley track. The water rose to an elevation of 370.9 and remained over the tracks several days. The sum of $11,624.26 was expended in temporary repairs to enable the road to operate and in raising the grade of the roadbed from twelve to fifteen inches above its former level. A great part of the work was done after the flood receded and I am unable to segregate the amount it cost to repair the damage occasioned by the flood and the amount expended for permanent betterment. The damages were temporary and if occasioned in the improvement of navigation in the Oswego canal consequential.

The Phoenix dam which preceded the one in suit was erected in 1865 pursuant to chapter 475 of the Laws of 1864. Its elevation was 359.18. Its crest was 440 feet in length. It carried flash-boards eighteen inches in height above said elevation of 359.18, which was a right acquired by prescription. (Ely v. State, 199 N. Y. 213.) The dam itself was solid masonry with no gates other than those admitting water to raceways of the mills. The new dam at Phoenix was substantially completed in 1911 and fully completed in 1912. It was a Barge canal structure erected pursuant to chapter 147 of the Laws of 1903, which was submitted to the electors at the general election in 1903 and approved. The shore ends were at the same points as the abutments of the old dam and the center was upstream so that the dam resembled in shape the letter “ U.” Its crest elevation was 363 which was 3.82 feet higher than the old dam and 2.3 feet higher than the old dam with the flashboards in place. The length of its crest was 560 feet, 120 feet longer than the old dam. The longer crest permits a greater discharge at a given velocity. In this dam there are six Taintor gates, each 28 feet 6 inches in width extending to the bed of the river. The watershed which discharges over this dam is 4,940 square miles in area.

The Seneca river, a navigable stream (Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. v. Canal Board, 204 N. Y. 471, 474), is the outlet of the Finger lakes, drains the Montezuma marshes, where it is joined by the Clyde river and flows easterly to the outlet of Onondaga lake, thence northerly to Three River Point where the Oswego river is formed by the confluence of the Seneca and Oneida rivers. The Oswego river above and below the city of Fulton “ has been used for purposes, of navigation and commerce.” (Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 200 N. Y. 400, 407.) Between the Phoenix [8]*8dam and Three River Point it has been used for navigation and commerce at least for nearly fifty years since the building of the Phoenix dam in 1865. This river flows northerly through Phoenix, Fulton and Oswego into Lake Ontario. The distance from Phoenix dam to Three River Point is two and eight-tenths miles; from the dam to Mud Lock, a few hundred feet easterly of the outlet of Onondaga lake, about nine miles; from the Phoenix dam to the dam at Baldwinsville about fifteen miles. The level of the pool created by the Phoenix dam extends to the foot of the dam at Baldwinsville.

Onondaga lake is fed by streams which in flood bring into it a great flow of water. On March 27, 1914, one of its feeders, Onondaga creek, discharged 3,600 cubic feet per second into the lake. The lake is about seven miles long arid from one and one-half to two miles wide with a precipitous watershed of 288 square miles in area. The waters of the lake discharge into the Seneca river a short distance upstream from Mud Lock through Onondaga outlet, a channel about three-fourths of a mile long, and by chapter 147 of the Laws of 1903, section 3, the State was authorized to enlarge the outlet to the size prescribed for the prism of the Erie and Oswego canals. The excavation was made in 1910.

Chapter 147 of the Laws of 1903 authorized the construction of the Oswego canal at a minimum depth of twelve feet. No contention is made that the State created a greater depth of water than required by this act, although some point seems to be made' of a note on the plans for the construction of the new dam at Phoenix, contract 80, to the effect that the State would maintain navigation at the maximum navigable elevation of 366.4 in spring stages of water. I do not see how the intention of the State as so expressed can affect the issue here. There must be some maximum above which it is unsafe to maintain navigation and operate the locks in the canal and which will still permit a clearance of fifteen and one-half feet between bridges and the water surface as required by section 3 of said act.

Prior to 1914 the State had widened and deepened the channels of Oswego and Seneca rivers. It had raised the crest elevations of the dams at Baldwinsville and Phoenix. Between Three River Point and Mud Lock in the Seneca river there had been a reef nearly a mile long known as the Gascons. Prior to the Barge canal construction a cut was made through the Gascons for the old canal fifty feet wide and seven feet in depth. This cut was widened and deepened for the Barge canal prior to 1912 to a width of one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet and to a depth of twelve feet. The Gascons before the channel through the reef [9]*9was excavated was a natural dam and backed the water up to Mud Lock and beyond. For a given discharge, the excavation would lower the water upstream from the Gascons and provided a larger and smoother channel with a lower velocity. It permits the flow of a greater volume of water at a lower elevation. The engineering experts seem to be in agreement as to the effect of the removal of this great mass of material from the river bed.

The State has the right to widen, deepen and improve the channel of a navigable stream for the benefit of the public in facilitating navigation thereon, and riparian ownership is subject to the obligation to suffer the consequences thereof.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Huse v. Glover
119 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1886)
Lehigh Valley R.R. Co. v. . Canal Board
97 N.E. 964 (New York Court of Appeals, 1912)
Fulton L., H. P. Co. v. . State of N.Y.
94 N.E. 199 (New York Court of Appeals, 1911)
Ely v. . State of New York
92 N.E. 629 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)
Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Canal Board
146 A.D. 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Thompson v. State
204 A.D. 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Stegmeier v. State
117 Misc. 626 (New York State Court of Claims, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 Misc. 6, 231 N.Y.S. 36, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-state-railroad-v-state-nyclaimsct-1928.