You are here: / / Local Law Prohibiting Use of Groundwater Outside Village Preempted by State...
, ,

Local Law Prohibiting Use of Groundwater Outside Village Preempted by State Law

The Second Department determined a village Local Law which prohibited the removal of groundwater for use outside the village was preempted by state law (Transportation Corporations law, Environmental Conservation Law (ECL)):

As relevant to this case, the Transportation Corporations Law permits water-works corporations to extend their service area to neighboring municipalities by entering “into a contract with the authorities of any city, town or village not mentioned in its certificate of incorporation, but situated in the same county as the city, towns or villages mentioned therein or in an adjoining county” (Transportation Corporations Law § 46). … Notably, the statutory procedure for obtaining a certificate of extension does not require the water-works corporation to obtain the consent or permission of the municipality where it was originally incorporated, an omission which we must conclude the Legislature intended (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240) and which comports with the long-recognized policy in favor of the extension of water resources to less-advantageously situated municipalities… . … Accordingly, we conclude that the Legislature manifested an intent to preempt local laws which have the effect of prohibiting a water-works corporation from transferring water from one municipality to another … .Further, to the extent that the Local Law was enacted, either in purpose or effect, as a measure to regulate withdrawals of groundwater, it is further preempted by article 15 of the ECL. The terms “waters,” as used in ECL article 15, is expansive and includes all surface and underground water within the state’s territorial limits (see ECL 15-0107[4]). ECL article 15 states: “The sovereign power to regulate and control the water resources of this state ever since its establishment has been and now is vested exclusively in the state of New York, except to the extent of any delegation of power to the United States” … . The Legislature declared it to be the public policy of the state that: “The regulation and control of the water resources of the state of New York be exercised only pursuant to the laws of this state” (ECL 15-0105[1] … ), and the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter the DEC) is given jurisdiction “in any matter affecting the construction of improvements to or developments of water resources for the public health, safety or welfare, including but not limited to the supply of potable waters for the various municipalities and inhabitants thereof” (ECL 15-0109). Woodbury Hgts Estates Water Co Inc v Village of Woodbury, 2013 NY Slip Op 07468, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
CONVICTION OF COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CHILD FIRST DEGREE MUST BE VACATED AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRIPPING HAZARD WAS INHERENT IN PLAINTIFF’S JOB; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSD (SECOND DEPT).
ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Surrogate’s Court Could Not Award Attorney’s Fees for Services Provided... Revocation of Plumber’s License Too Severe a Penalty