WSPC02443 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(}iJ{_40~ . In discussing the Zwillikon Dam case which arose in Switzerland, H. Arthur Smith, a professor at the University of London, stated, (t liThe economic interests involved in this Swiss dispute were comparatively small, but the case has some interest as being the earliest'ene, so far as I have been able to discover, in which a judicial tribunal has approached the problem from the standpoint of international law. The case began in 1871 as ordinary litigation between private parties, and at a later stage the inter- venticn of the cantons gave it a quasi-international character, . . liThe small stream of the Jonabach divides the cantons of Aargau and Zurich. At the villa,;e of Zwilliken a Zurich firm called Biedermann Brothers built a dam in order to develop power for the use of their factory, and objection to this VIas taken by certain Aargau mill-owners whose properties lay further down the stream,. the sub- stance of their grievance being that tre dam deprived them of a sufficient fl~r of ':ater during normal working hours. Owinr; to the rate of flaw from the dam, it was claimed that the Aargau owners lost four hours of working time each day. There was no question in this oase of diversion. In 1872 Zurich passed a law permitting the ereotion of dams in all cases where they did not involve a loss of vmter during normal ~orking hours, and providing further that dams might be erected even in such oases, provided that loss to third ];!\rties vms prevented by compensating works cr that the parties reached an agreement. Under this law Biedermann Brothers obtained a license for their dam, which was granted on condition that they should deposit a sum of 6,700 francs to the ac- count of the mill-CM~ers and provide for a suf- ficient flow of water between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. The Canton of Aargau now took up the case before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, claiming that the Zurich statute was an infringement of her rights. / liThe decision which was rendered in 1878. laid dovm that Aargau had no proprietary interest in the water, but only a right to a reasonable share of the flow, and that this right was not in- fringed by the Zurich statute, which made equitable provision for the protection of riparian cwners. Aargau herself had the power to remedy any injury that might be caused, since the sum of money deposited would enable the lower mill-owners to ~rect a dam , . -10-