## Facts

- Elsie B. Adams and other plaintiffs owned riparian estates along the Mianus River in Greenwich, Connecticut, using the river for recreation, irrigation, livestock, and occasional fire protection, and claiming river frontage increased property value.
- The Mianus River flows from New York into Connecticut and is a highly variable “flash stream,” with a substantial portion of its watershed located in New York.
- Greenwich Water Company (GWC) was specially chartered by the Connecticut legislature to supply water in parts of Connecticut and also to specified areas in New York, subject to a condition that New York service would not curtail an adequate supply for Connecticut inhabitants.
- GWC had previously pumped from the Mianus upstream from plaintiffs’ properties; during drought conditions it took a significant portion of the stream’s flow.
- Anticipating inadequate future supply even for Connecticut customers, GWC planned to build a dam and reservoir upstream from plaintiffs’ properties and to acquire necessary water and riparian rights through eminent domain under its charter.
- Plaintiffs sought to enjoin diversion and condemnation of any Mianus River waters; GWC sought a declaratory judgment confirming its authority to condemn despite some benefit flowing to New York consumers.

## Issues

1. Whether GWC’s charter authorized condemnation of Connecticut riparian and water rights for a project that would supply some water to consumers in New York, subject to protecting Connecticut’s adequate supply.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ riparian uses and flow-dependent interests constituted compensable property rights when impaired by a lawful condemnation.
3. Whether injunctive relief was available to stop the taking, or whether plaintiffs’ remedy was limited to just compensation.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held GWC’s charter authorized it to condemn the plaintiffs’ riparian and water rights and construct the reservoir, even though some water would be furnished to New York consumers, so long as Connecticut’s adequate supply was not curtailed.
- The court recognized plaintiffs’ riparian interests as property rights affected by the project, but ruled their protection lay in compensation rather than an injunction barring condemnation.

## Legal Principles

- A special legislative charter granting a utility authority to furnish water to defined in-state and out-of-state areas may permit eminent-domain takings within the state to support that service, where the charter conditions out-of-state service on maintaining an adequate in-state supply.
- The legislature’s determination that a regional water-supply project serves a “public use” is entitled to substantial judicial deference; the presence of out-of-state beneficiaries does not defeat public use where the authorized in-state public purpose remains protected.
- Riparian rights and flow-dependent interests tied to the use and enjoyment of waterfront property are compensable property interests when impaired by an authorized taking.
- When a condemning entity acts under valid statutory authority, injunctive relief is generally unavailable to prevent the taking; the usual remedy is just compensation in condemnation proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Greenwich Water Company to proceed with condemning riparian and water rights for a Mianus River reservoir under its charter, holding that incidental service to New York did not defeat the taking’s public character and that affected riparian owners were entitled to compensation rather than an injunction.


Adams v. Greenwich Water Co., 83 A.2d 177 (Conn. 1951)