‘the suffocation of gilboa:’ the construction of the...

1

‘The Suffocation of Gilboa:’ The Construction of the Schoharie Reservoir 1917-1926

Introduction

In the early twentieth century a conflict developed between the Water Commission representing

the City of New York and the people of rural upstate Gilboa. On 2 October 1917 Mr. Osborn, counsel

for the claimants [townspeople of Gilboa, New York], made a convincing argument to the Commission

assembled on behalf of the New York Supreme Court, to move up the case of an unnamed resident of

Gilboa.

The situation is this: This young man is there with his farming stock, farming implements, and does not know what he has to do. There is a motion made returnable on Saturday to pay him one-half of the assessed value of 1913, so that the City can get in possession… They cannot give us any assurance. We might be asked to vacate in two weeks. This puts this young man in a very serious position…1

The residents of the Village of Gilboa had hired the firm of Brown and Slosson to represent them in

their fight to force the City of New York to pay the fair market value of their respective residences and

businesses. The presiding Commission at the Kingston Court House established a calendar of when

each case would be brought before the Court; after hearing the testimony of various officials and

insurance companies that assessed the value of the individual properties, the Commission then awarded

an amount of money to each landowner. However, as the timeline for the construction of the dam and

reservoir were pushed up due to pressure put upon the NYC Water Commission by NYC’s increasing

need for water, the NYC based Board of Water Supply denied Gilboa residents the value of their

property by paying only half of each property’s worth.

The conflict had several phases and points of contention between the parties which included:

the displacement of the Gilboan residents caused by the Dam, the timeline under which the Dam and

reservoir were to be constructed, as well as the compensation that those displaced would receive. The 1 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2236-2237.

2

flooding of Gilboa reflects the urban metropolises’ exploitation of rural towns in the early twentieth

century through the policy of eminent domain, as well as the violation of the rural townsfolk’s

constitutional right to property as stated in the Fifth Amendment. On the one hand, citizens of Gilboa

had less affluence and influence in state politics as suggested by the various court records, news

accounts, oral testimonies, and deeds. These various documents also suggest that the policy of eminent

domain employed for the benefit of the metropolis, put the rural citizens at a political disadvantage,

and allowed the more powerful Water Commission to undercut the prices of the properties without

accounting for the people’s loss of livelihood. While this paper focuses on the case study of Gilboa,

this work provides a comparison for other similar cases that occurred across the nation during the

twentieth century.

Historiography

A common theme in many of the secondary works that discuss the aqueduct is the degree to

which New York City was desperate for a source of water. The population was growing rapidly, and

although several options were proposed, the creation of the Croton Aqueduct, followed by the Catskill

and Delaware Systems, provided the most complicated of the solutions proposed.2, However, New

Yorkers needed a clean source for their water, and geographically speaking, the mountains provided

the most practical, least expensive, and quick to build solution, for the transportation of the water, due

to gravity. Gravity could be employed in the transportation, thereby reducing the number of pumps that

would be needed, and diminishing the risk of having one of the underground machines break, which

would be costly and difficult to repair.3, The discussion of the engineering aspect of the dams,

2 Diane Galusha, Liquid Assets: A History of New York City’s Water System (Fleischmanns: Purple Mountain Press, 1999), 7-10. Jill Schneiderman, Ed. The Earth Around Us: Maintaining A Livable Planet (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2000), 167-172. 3 Anastasia Van Burkalow, "The Geography of New York City’s Water Supply: A Study of Interactions." Geographical Review 49, no. 3 (1959), http://www.jstor.org/stable/211912. Letty Anderson, "Hard Choices: Supplying Water to New England Towns," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15, no. 2 (1984), http://www.jstor.org/stable/204881.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/211912


3

aqueducts, and tunnels dominates the published writings of the New York water supply crisis. Such

authors discuss the technology, mathematics, and logic behind the various water systems.

A large portion of the secondary sources utilized, focused on all aspects of the construction of

dams, aqueducts, and reservoirs, excluding the townspeople’s perspective on the matter of the local

populations’ homes that were taken away. For example, Donald C. Jackson’s Building the Ultimate

Dam: John S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West,4 Kevin Wehr’s America’s Fight Over

Water: The Environmental and Political Effects of Large-Scale Water Systems,5 David Francko and

Robert Wetzel’s To Quench Our Thirst: The Present and Future Status of Freshwater Resources of the

United States,6 Ted Willrich’s Water Pollution Control And Abatement,7 Donald Pisani’s “Enterprise

and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century” and Lawrence Lee’s

“California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP,”8 all deal with Water issues in the West. All of

these authors also deal with politics, and the role that politics play in the construction of the dams and

reservoirs. In order to describe to their readers the workings behind the technology, the majority of the

authors utilize mathematical equations and diagrams; these depictions are used especially when the

author is focused on explaining a specific reservoir or dam site, that can serve as a case study for other

similar projects. Many of the authors also deal explicitly with the idea of pollution and/or the use of

water and the long-term repercussions that the efficiency with which Americans are consuming water

will have on future water sources. Donald Pisani’s “Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western

Water Law in the Nineteenth Century” and Lawrence Lee’s “California Water Politics: Opposition to

the CVP,” both address the role that politics play in the issue of water sources in the Western U.S. in 4 Donald Jackson, Building the Ultimate Dam: John S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984). 5 Kevin Wehr, America’s Fight Over Water: The Environmental and Political Effects of Large-Scale Water Systems (New York: Routledge, 2004), 71. 6 David Francko and Robert Wetzel, To Quench Our Thirst: The Present and Future Status of Freshwater Resources of the United States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983). 7 Ted Willrich, Water Pollution Control And Abatement (Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965), v-vi. 8 Donald Pisani, "Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century," The Western History Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1987), http://www.jstor.org/stable/968926.


4

addition to exploring the capacity that the agriculture in the West fills.9 Water in the Western United

States has become a primary focus in those concerned with water resources, due to the actions taken by

the West to secure a fresh water source.

Another series of secondary sources that were utilized, were books regarding the subject of

eminent domain, and the Constitutionality of the Commerce Clause. The four books used included:

Private Property and the Constitution, by Bruce A. Ackerman, This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is

My Land: The Property Rights Movement and Regulatory Takings, by Alfred M. Olivetti Jr. and Jeff

Worsham,10 Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, by Richard A. Epstein,11

and Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust For Land, by Carla T. Main.12 All of

these four sources examine the idea of what private property is, in addition to the Constitutionality of

the 5th and 14th Amendments, wherein the 14th Amendment made the 5th Amendment applicable to the

individual states. This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land, as well as Takings, both question

whether or not the “just compensation” clause of the 5th Amendment is an excuse utilized by the

American Government to take property owners’ land away. Bulldozed and Takings both examine the

weakness of the very notion of property rights, delving into the issue of eminent domain later on in the

books. Private Property and the Constitution provides the reader with two different approaches to

viewing the issue of private property: the Utilitarian theory and the Kantian theory.13

Despite the scholarly articles and books written regarding the construction of the dams,

reservoirs, tunnels and aqueducts, combined with the works regarding the West and the significance of

geography, there is still little information regarding the townspeople that were forced from their

9 Donald Pisani, "Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century," The Western History Quarterly 18, no. 1 (1987), http://www.jstor.org/stable/968926. 10 Alfred M. Olivetti Jr., and Jeff Worsham, This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: The Property Rights Movement and Regulatory Takings (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2003) 2. 11 Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985) viii-ix. 12 Carla T. Main, Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust For Land (New York: Encounter Books, 2007) 1-11. 13 Bruce A. Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977) 84.


5

homes. The undeniable fact that large cities have been desperate for a source of water has been

pervasive throughout academic works regarding the subject, as well as the importance of the well

being of the people of these cities. However, the well being of the townspeople is scarcely mentioned.

The relationship that exists between the large cities and their rural counterparts prior to the

construction of these large engineering accomplishments, does not come across as particularly

important when the issue of water surfaces, and yet the repeated instances of rural versus urban rights

regarding water has long been critical in American history. David Stradling’s Making Mountains: New

York City and the Catskills is one of the rare books to consider the issue of how New York City

thought of the Catskills and to pass more than a cursory glance at the people most affected by the New

York City Water System.14 Stradling explores how the Catskills were viewed before, during and after

the Catskill Aqueduct was constructed, examining the significance the Catskills had in the formation of

New York City and the capacity in which NYC helped to form the Catskills.15 The Catskill Aqueduct,

along with the tunnels that help transport NYC’s water supply, was named “The Greatest Engineering

Feat of Its Time,” and the pride felt by NYC was felt by the people who lost everything in the name of

the project to some extent.16 It is important to note, however, that the pride felt by the local population,

was mixed with lingering resentment and sadness, and while necessity demanded a new source of

water, it came at the cost of livelihoods and homes of people from more than ten towns and villages.

Many of the secondary sources dealt explicitly with the major social groups and the role that

these large factions played in either the quest for water, the development of technology, or the

exploitation of opportunities that arose due to water shortages. The books regarding eminent domain

focus largely upon the notion of private property and the Constitutionality of the takings clause.

However, it is notable that these same sources did not address the impact that these larger factions, 14 David Stradling, Making Mountains: New York City and the Catskills (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007). 15 David Stradling, Making Mountains: New York City and the Catskills (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007). 16 “New York’s Projected System Of Water Supply the Greatest Engineering Feat of Its Kind In History,” New York Times, 16 June 1907, News section.

6

coupled with the metropolises’ need for water, had on smaller communities and individuals. This paper

deals with the capacity in which eminent domain and the commerce clause fills, in addition to the

effect that the demands of the cities had on specific rural communities. Water crises have been

approached from the larger entities’ perspective, and the townspeople’s perspectives must be

considered.

New York City residents considered the Catskills their personal playground. On weekends and

holidays city residents left behind the high paced life and crowds, in addition to the poor air and water

quality of the City, and literally ‘headed for the hills.’ In the Catskills they found solace and tranquility

in the clean mountain air, the fresh streams, and abundance of trees; in addition, the profusion of

wildlife provided hunting and recreational opportunities for those that couldn’t get enough of the

rough, yet peaceful environment.17 The relationship between the City residents and the year round

Catskill dwellers was often inequitable; this disparity is reflected in secondary source material on the

relationship between the Catskills and NYC, as many scholars approach the topic from the perspective

of NYC residents, ignoring the viewpoint of the Catskill residents. The City residents gave very little

consideration to the effect their influx had on the livelihoods of the locals, and this disregard for the

local Catskill populations during the mid-nineteenth century and into the mid-twentieth century played

an important role in the mindset that the Catskills was there to serve the various needs of people living

in New York City.18 In turn, this attitude contributed to the decision made by a New York City based

water commission to utilize the Catskills as a source for city water. Ultimately the decision led to the

destruction of several towns and villages in order to build dams and reservoirs to contain water, in

addition to an aqueduct that stretched from New York City to the Catskill Mountains to transport water

from the countryside to city faucets.

17 David Stradling, Making Mountains: New York City and the Catskills (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007). 18 David Stradling, Making Mountains: New York City and the Catskills (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007) 14.

7

According to David Billington, in his book Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of

Engineering and Politics, the creation of dams and aqueducts throughout America, especially in the

American West, is not only technologically motivated, but also politically motivated.19 It was thought

by the politicians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, that in order to achieve economic

success, it was imperative to be the number one country technologically speaking. As such, the reason

for the creation of the commerce clause was legitimize the government’s taking of land for the “public

good.”20 While the creation of the reservoirs created economic success for those engineering and in

charge of the construction of the dams and reservoirs, there were several other, more widespread,

repercussions to these technological achievements. The effects on the surrounding landscape and

ecology, coupled with the perception of the people that their supply of water is limitless, due to the

easy access of it, allow for the perpetuation of the cycle of needing water and obtaining water. In

addition to the mere consumption of water, there is also the issue of polluting the water sources

through agricultural sprays and chemicals, and the dumping of chemical substances by companies such

as General Electric, a former culprit in the dumping of PCBs in the Hudson River.21 Although

corporate pollution of water did not occur during the 1920s to the same degree that such pollution

occurred during the 1980s, the pollution of water sources is pervasive throughout American water

source history.

It is also important to note the engineering and geological research that led to the construction

of the Catskill Water Supply, as it provides an insight into why the particular valley of Gilboa was

selected for the Schoharie Reservoir. As argued by Ernest E. Wahlstrom, the success of the Catskill

19 David Billington and Donald C. Jackson, Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006). 20 David Billington and Donald C. Jackson, Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006). 21 Ted Willrich, Water Pollution Control And Abatement (Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965), v-vi.

8

System is reliant, not only on the engineering aspect, but also on the geology of the area.22 As the

geological formations allow for geologists to document the history of a given geographic location, this

history permits engineers and geologists to ascertain how long the man-made structures will last in the

given location. The severity of factors such as weather conditions, determine the rate of decay and the

degree of success that the structure installed will have.23 Several components and characteristics of the

Schoharie reservoir site made the Gilboa Valley a more successful location for the reservoir, including

the steepness of the mountains surrounding the valley. The large and steep mountains would allow for

the run-off water to flow directly into the reservoir, in addition to helping to keep the water adequately

contained without the use of extraneous support.24 Also, there were engineering components that dealt

explicitly with the construction of the dam itself, as well as the aqueduct. In order to create the

aqueduct, several tunnels had to be constructed in addition to a tunnel that was dug underneath the

Hudson River; it is the combination of these engineering and geological breakthroughs that made the

Catskill Aqueduct “The Greatest Engineering Feat of Its Time.” Another characteristic that defined the

Catskills as a suitable source for New York City’s new water supply was the fact that the Catskills

were higher in elevation, which would prove to be invaluable when it came down to the actual

transportation of the water. Gravity was a major factor that allowed for the possibility of the Catskill

Aqueduct, as the height of the Reservoir permitted the water to flow through the tunnels, South

towards New York City, wherein the height of the aqueduct would gradually decline, eventually

leaving the aqueduct completely immersed underground.25

Flagstone Sidewalks and Streetlamps: Gilboa in the Early Twentieth Century

22 Ernest Wahlstrom, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 6: Dams, Dam Foundations, and Reservoir Sites (New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974), 1. 23 Ernest Wahlstrom, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 6: Dams, Dam Foundations, and Reservoir Sites (New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974), 1. 24 Donald Jackson, Building the Ultimate Dam: John S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984). 25 Anastasia Van Burkalow, "The Geography of New York City’s Water Supply: A Study of Interactions." Geographical Review 49, no. 3 (1959), http://www.jstor.org/stable/211912


9

Gilboa, New York was once one of the most prosperous villages located in the Catskill

Mountains. Complete with two hotels, three churches, a car dealership, several general stores and

mills, a theater, and homes, Gilboa was a close-knit community; in addition Gilboa also had a gristmill,

tannery, cotton factory, fire department, doctor offices, and seminary.26 The Schoharie Creek, which

ran along the Western side of the town, flooded periodically causing damage to surrounding buildings,

but the construction of the aqueduct required destruction on a much larger scale.27 Seven cemeteries

were moved, and a total of four hundred and thirty buildings were destroyed to make way for the

reservoir.28 However, the Mohicans had settled the land before the Europeans arrived, and used the

Schoharie Creek as a consistent source of water. Ironically in Mohican Folklore the creek overflowing

was attributed to “an old squaw spirit” that would “brew up black thunderstorms, and send down

drenching rains, to swell the streams and ‘sweep everything away’.”29 The twentieth century village of

Gilboa was one main street with “large white houses, flagstone sidewalks, and street lamps that were

lit by hand every evening,” as depicted in the following map of Gilboa made by the tax collectors in

1920.30 There are several pictures of the homes that were located in Gilboa, that reflect the beauty of

the Village before its desecration.31 (Image 1)

26 J.H, French, Gazetteer of the State of New York (Syracuse: R. Pearsall Smith, 1860), 604. 27 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997). 28 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa Village” (April 30, 1987). 29 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997). 30 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997). 31 These images are available in the appendix.

10

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Image 232

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

The people of Gilboa lived relatively simply and were content with living within the Gilboa

community. According to Beatrice Mattice, this sense of satisfaction was reflected in Gilboans’ daily

lives:

Farmers around still grew their own food; their income was small, their wants few. They went to the village of Gilboa on Saturday afternoons for a few staple groceries and farm supplies. Those trips provided amusement, for such things as the phonograph, radio, and television were beyond imagination.33

The Village of Gilboa was officially established March 16, 1848 and had been formed from parts of

both the Blenheim and Broome Patents. The name of Gilboa was derived from the Bible, when a

32 Please See Image 3 in Appendix 33 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997).

11

member of the community opened the Bible, placed his finger on a passage regarding Mount Gilboa, a

beautiful mountainous area discussed in the Bible and reflective of the valley of Schoharie.34 In the

catchments that became known as the Schoharie reservoir, there were two waterfalls, Devasego and

Manor Kills Falls; these were so beautiful they were major tourist destinations.35 The rocks

surrounding the waterfalls were picturesque, covered with moss and alongside beautiful bushes and

foliage.36 Despite the abundance of water provided by the creek, Gilboa suffered several fires. On 4

May 1890, twenty-four buildings caught on fire.37 Another fire, just before aqueduct construction

began on 17 October 1925, destroyed eighteen buildings, however it was debated whether or not the

fire had been set intentionally to prevent a movie company from filming the story of Gilboa; it was

thought by the filming company and the NYC Water Commission that some of the locals had set the

fire in order to preserve their dignity. The Knickerbocker Press, a newspaper out of Albany, reported:

“Gilboans smile grimly, realizing that this crowning indignity to their hamlet is saved.”38 The fire,

intentionally set or not, represented the end of the town and left many of the remaining residents

homeless. The “crowning indignity” mentioned was the movie that would have been made if the

remainder of the town had not been burnt down; Gilboans felt as though the movie would expose their

plight and their feelings regarding the destruction of their town to the entire world, which they

considered a relatively private affair.

The Matter of Money: NYC Water Commission vs. Citizens of Gilboa

Cases such as the one presented in court by Mr. Osborn were pervasive throughout the Village

of Gilboa. The people of Gilboa were desperate for compensation for their land and buildings so that 34 Town of Gilboa Documentary, Remembering Gilboa: A Brief History 1770-Present, directed by Kristen Wyckoff, 45 minutes, 2007, DVD. 35 Emerson Palmer.“Turning A River Backward To Feed Our Town Pump,” New York Times, 14 December 1919. Magazine Section, 4. 36 Emerson Palmer.“Turning A River Backward To Feed Our Town Pump,” New York Times, 14 December 1919. Magazine Section, 4. 37 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997). 38 Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997).

12

they could have the funds to move and re-establish themselves, since they were being forced from their

homes. The sentiment existed that as the City was taking land for the benefit of urban dwellers, in

return the least that the City could do was to pay the property’s fair market value.39 However, as the

construction of the dam moved along quickly, and the legal proceedings were taking longer than

anticipated, residents still waiting for their dates in court to assure their compensation, were being

forced out of their homes without having gone through the legal process. Mr. Darrow, one of the

counsels for the claimants, proposed at the very beginning of the Court proceedings that a calendar be

constructed, so as to best maintain a schedule of when each claimant should appear before the court, as

well as restricting the amount of time each case should be considered by the Commission.40 In

addition, Mr. Darrow’s proposal was to prevent cases from being ignored or not heard until long after

the City had taken the land and therefore make it impossible for the land to be viewed during the

proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel was more than happy to forgo a calendar due to the delay that the

lack of a schedule would cause in the procedures. Such a delay would result in fewer residents being

afforded the opportunity to receive their just compensation, which would be a cheaper method for the

petitioners to acquire the land.

The NYC Water Commission tried to circumvent the legal proceedings by offering each owner

half of the property value without issuing any objections or in-depth analyses as to the value of the

property. While the action may have appeared generous enough, the Water Commission based the

property’s worth on the value that the land was at least four years prior to the date that an offer was

made. Yet as property value increased over time, owners would actually received less than even half

the fair market value. While some residents settled for the low reimbursement for their homes, others

astutely requested that their court dates be moved up to accommodate the progress of the Construction

and prevent settlement without a hearing. The case presented by Mr. Osborn was one such request,

39 Interview with Kristen Wyckoff, Interviewed by Author. 40 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 50.

13

wherein Mr. Osborn tried to not only move the court date of his client forward, but also to persuade the

Commission members to go out and view the property before the buildings were destroyed.41 The

reason behind Osborn’s request was to ensure that the petitioner’s counsel did not swindle building

owners out of the compensation they were entitled to, by using the argument that as the buildings were

no longer present, the value was no longer assessable as there was no longer any property to evaluate.

While the Commissioners viewed the site of the dam and Gilboa as a whole, they had not looked inside

the homes and businesses to assess the value of each individual property, and therefore relied on the

testimony of the professionals from a particular field.

In the case presented by Mr. Osborn, Osborn asked that the commission visit the home in

question, and to examine for themselves the barn “with a cement floor, modern in all respects, with

equipment…”42 Mr. Osborn tried to persuade the Court through his description of the “young man’s”

situation and the time constraint the farmer was under if he did in fact have to relinquish his property.43

“If this young man has to sell his stock, it should be done before mid-winter, and if we have got to

move and go into some other part of the town to live, he ought to know something about that.”44 While

the Court was preoccupied by other cases, and the claimant’s counsel was busy with the description of

the quality of the walls in buildings, farmers and other residents were concerned for their futures, and

were trying to make plans before the winter season came upon them. If the farmers could be assured

that their land would not be taken until the Spring then they could live where they were for another

year, which therefore gave the farmers time to earn more income and to put their affairs in order.45 All

of the properties that were presented and being considered by the Commission at the time of Mr. 41 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2236-2238. 42 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2237. 43 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2238. 44 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2238. 45 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2240.

14

Osborn’s request were plots of land that no one lived on and that had no buildings on the property.46

However, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Speer, tried to block Mr. Osborn’s request by stating that the

City needed the property without the buildings upon it soon, in order to continue construction on the

shafts.47 Mr. Speer argued that as the City needed the property sooner than they needed the land that

the farmer was on, that the property without the buildings should be settled before the farmer’s land.48

Despite Mr. Speer’s objections, the Chairman decided that it would be appropriate for the Commission

to view the house and farmland, in addition to moving the case forward in the calendar.49

Mr. Speer took advantage of the decision and suggested that, as the Commission would be in

the area, that they should also view the properties that the City needed to acquire sooner rather than

later.50 Speer tried to blackmail Osborn by pointing out that in accordance with “the Act” the

petitioners would be able to acquire the land in one of two ways: “either by paying one-half of the

assessed valuation in 1913, or by paying the award.”51 The tactic employed by Mr. Speer of drawing

attention to the petitioner’s ability to pay only half of the fair market value of the land from four years

prior to the proceedings, was a veiled threat; it was meant to convey that if the land needed by the City

was not assessed and the money awarded to the owner by the time that the City took the land, due to

the delay posed by the Commission’s consideration of the new case, then the owners of that said

property would not be given the sum of money they were otherwise entitled to. A compromise was

reached when Mr. Speer requested that the properties that were needed by the City were to be

considered directly following the assessment of the farmer’s land and that the properties were to be

46 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2238. 47 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2239. 48 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2239. 49 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2241. 50 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2241. 51 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2241.

15

assessed as a group, instead of individually.52 While Mr. Osborn got what he had requested, the

concession was made on behalf of the residents who owned the land without buildings on them, and

therefore those residents were not awarded the opportunity to have their land assessed on an individual

basis, and receive the proper monetary value for their land.

In addition to awarding less than the fair market value of a property, the petitioners also

proposed that claims be tried in groups according to the size of the property, instead of trying the

claims separately.53 By trying the claims on an individual basis, the court would have to determine the

net value of each property based on the quality of the buildings and farmland, which created more

work for the court, but was a more evenhanded way for compensating the landowners.54 By grouping

the claims, the Commission would not have to spend the time assessing each of the properties, and

could get away with not offering the farmer/owner the correct compensation. In addition, if the claims

were not considered on an individual basis, the amount of money in reimbursement would be

contingent upon one legal counsel, thereby forcing numerous owners and farmers to rely on just one

legal representative. If that one representative was not very experienced with law, or became ill and

could not appear for court, there would not be another person familiar enough with the situation to

aptly take over the case. While the flaws with presenting the claims in groups were apparent to the

claimants, the proposal had its merits. Such a method would allow for the proceedings to be completed

in a shorter amount of time, which would give the Gilboan residents the time necessary to move and to

seek new accommodations. In addition, there would be fewer disputes among the residents regarding

the value of one another’s property, and why one farmer or resident got more money than the other.55

Also, as less time would be spent on the proceedings as a whole, fewer counselors would need to be 52 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2242. 53 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 14-15. 54 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 14-15. 55 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 15-16.

16

utilized and therefore save on costs and provide consistency throughout the proceedings.56 Finally, the

speedier the trying of the claims, the decreased likelihood of the counselors and/ or citizens being able

to corrupt or bribe the existing Commission and Judges.57 The Commission ultimately decided that the

best method of reimbursement would be to try the properties individually, so as to most accurately

award the farmers with the correct compensation for the land. However, this method managed to

extend the proceedings for several days and on occasion weeks, instead of the proposed two or three

days; this therefore left some of the residents with little time to move due to their shortage of funds.

The conflict did not end over whether or not to assess the values of the properties individually

or collectively; the issue of whether or not the claimants could include in their claims the cost of the

construction of the buildings on their properties in addition to the cost of the current fair market value

also arose.58 The result of the debate was that the cost of construction could not be incorporated into

the overall value of the land, yet Mr. Clearwater, one of the counsels for the claimants, managed to

circumvent the issue by claiming that the cost of the upkeep and restoration of the buildings that would

have been done if the property were to be sold in any normal circumstances, would be included in the

fair market value.59 Another source of conflict between the opposing counsels was in the question of

the competency and qualifications of the professionals that had assessed the value of the differing

aspects of the properties. The issue of familiarity of the location coupled with the cost that the

transportation of materials and workers was, provided a source of contention, with Mr. Speer claiming

that the lack of familiarity and the costs were unknown to those that had not done the work

56 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 14. 57 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 14-18. 58 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 70-74. 59 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 127.

17

themselves.60 Mr. Clearwater, however, made it clear that any professional that did not confine himself

to a specific area of expertise within his field, would be more then able to accurately approximate the

value of the work previously done.61 The controversy over the issue of competency was deemed

unjustified by the ruling Commission, and despite Mr. Speer’s continual objections, the testimony of

the professionals was accepted.62

In every case presented before the Commission, a physical description was detailed, thereby

allowing the Judges the opportunity to construct a rough idea of what the claimant was losing. The

description was accompanied by the photos taken by the NYC Water Commission’s Insurance

Company, of the front and the back of each home and business. It was the petitioner’s methodology of

ensuring that the claimants would not attempt to claim that they owned more land than they actually

did. One such description is of a business building entitled “Claimant’s Exhibit No. 8,” wherein the

size of the building was explained, in addition to the exact measurement so f the rafters, first floor,

second floor, and ceiling joist.63 “Across the front is a wood battlement paneled, and supported by four

heavy brackets…the store front is built of clear white pine with 3” sash…”64 Following the detailed

description of the building and store, a list of “Estimates of Cost of Carpentry. Metal Work. Plumbing.

And Painting” wherein each aspect of the building was broken down and the cost of estimated.65 The

cost of the electric wiring was also estimated, ensuring that each and every component of the structure

had been accounted for. The reading of every single item off of the list, in addition to the time that it

took to read the physical description of the building, was substantial, taking three hours and thirty

minutes to complete. This was yet another delay methodology employed by the Petitioner’s counsel, in

60 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 129-131. 61 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 132. 62 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 133-134. 63 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, September 11, 1917, 125. 64 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, September 11, 1917, 125. 65 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, September 11, 1917, 125.

18

order to hold up the legal proceedings as much as possible. While it was necessary for the Commission

to be aware of the details enumerated by the Petitioner’s counsel, it was an inefficient way for the

information to be given to the Commissioners.

However, the fact that the Gilboans’ land was being taken against the express wishes of the

residents was maintained throughout the proceedings.66 It was of great concern to the claimants’

counsel that the human factor be incorporated and preserved in order to reinforce the injustice faced by

the Gilboans. Mr. Clearwater took it upon himself to emphasize to the Commission that the claimants

were not greedy individuals trying to extort money from the City, but poor and rural townsfolk trying

to survive. “As far as these people whom I represent are concerned, and of course, whom we all

represent here, your Honors will always bear in mind what this proceeding is, that they are deprived of

their property against their wishes.”67 While Mr. Clearwater was compelled to make the point to the

Commission that the townsfolk were merely trying to receive just compensation for their land,

Clearwater did not wish to insult the Commission or the Petitioners by insinuating that the Court did

not have the best interests of the townspeople at heart. Mr. Clearwater avoided this predicament by

inserting the comment “whom we all represent here” before making his point, thereby allying himself

with the Commission before the witnesses were even introduced to the Court.68 Mr. Clearwater

continued his address to the Commission by reminding the Commission of the Constitutional Rights of

the Gilboan residents.

There is one thing I wanted to impress upon your Honors,-- the Constitution of the State provides that land should not be taken for a public use without just compensation, but this act under which your Honors are proceeding provides that it shall not be taken but that owners shall receive just and equitable compensation.69

66 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 27. 67 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 27. 68 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 27. 69 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 27-28.

19

The fact that Clearwater decided to remind the Court of what the law was, shows that he was worried

that the Court would not take the cases seriously enough or think the plight of the resident’s to be of a

large enough concern to warrant the full consideration of the Commissioners. While Clearwater made

his point, he managed to offend one of the Commissioners, Valentine Taylor, who followed

Clearwater’s remark with a rhetorical question regarding the meaning of the word “just” as meaning

“just and equitable compensation.”70 However, Clearwater continued to offend the Court by attempting

to have the Court apply the law in “a more elastic and broader construction” in order to allow the

citizens of Gilboa more leniency and consideration during the residents’ cases.71 Commissioner Taylor

rebuked Clearwater for his insolence, and the proceedings continued; however the mistake on behalf of

Clearwater cast the claimants in the less favorable position with the Court thereby hurting the

residents’ cases.

The Gilboan residents’ homes and livelihoods were taken so that the growing population of

New York City would have an adequate supply of water. While the taking of Gilboa was justifiable,

the means by which the policy of eminent domain was implemented was both unconstitutional and

illegal. This case study of Gilboa exemplifies a portion of the United States Constitution that is being

blatantly disregarded, in favour of larger corporations and politics. It is indisputable that New York

City was in dire need of a new source of water, and the location of Gilboa was, unfortunately, the

perfect setting for the construction of the Schoharie Reservoir. The methodology of ignoring the

smaller populations Constitutional Rights and the use of eminent domain as the defense for failing to

provide proper compensation to the towns and villages pervasive throughout America is an issue that is

ignored more often than not. Events similar to the flooding of Gilboa has occurred throughout the

American West, in states such as Colorado and Nevada, wherein systems such as the Hetch Hetchy

70 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 28. 71 Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 28.

20

Water System supplies water to the people living in San Francisco, California. While eminent domain

may be necessary for the survival of the larger cities, the policy violates the rights of rural and

powerless individuals and villages. The current issue of clean energy is an up and coming source of

dissention, where those of the rural populations are becoming subject to the same “bulldozing”

technique employed throughout the construction of the Water Systems following the implementation

of the New Deal. The people of Gilboa suffered the loss of their homes and several people lost their

lives for New York City’s Water Source; while necessary for the survival of NYC, the cost did not also

have to incorporate the loss of their Constitutional Rights.

Bibliography Primary Sources: Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa” (paper presented at Kristen Wyckoff’s Art Show “Gilboa Past

and Present,’ Gilboa, New York, October 19, 1997). Beatrice Mattice, “Old Gilboa Village” (April 30, 1987). “City Starts To-Day,” New York Times, 20 June 1907, News section. “For Future Water Supply,” New York Times, 10 November 1907, News section.

“Gilboa Dam Contract Let,” New York Times, 21 June 1919, News section. Howard Mingon. “New York Reaches Out For More,” New York Times, 8 February 1925,

Section 8. French, J.H. Gazetteer of the State of New York. Syracuse: R. Pearsall Smith, 1860. “New Catskill Tunnel Longest In The World,” New York Times, 27 January 1924, Section 8.

“New Morgan Water Bill,” New York Times, 29 September 1904, News section.

“New York’s Projected System Of Water Supply the Greatest Engineering Feat of Its Kind In

History,” New York Times, 16 June 1907, News section.

21

“New York’s Water At 25th Anniversary,” New York Times, 13 May 1923, Section 8.

Palmer, Emerson. “Turning A River Backward To Feed Our Town Pump,” New York Times, 14

December 1919. Magazine Section, 4. “Plan For City To Tap Catskill Watershed,” New York Times, 29 September 1904, News section. Parrott, R.D.A. “The Water Supply Of New York City,” Scientific American 557 (1886): 144. Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25,

1917-November 13, 1917, 14-15. Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25,


1917-November 13, 1917, 14. Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25,




1917-November 13, 1917, 70-74. Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, September

11, 1917, 125. Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25,





1917-November 13, 1917, 2236-2238.

22

Schoharie County Co. Clerk, Board of Water Supply- NY Civil Case File Testimony, May 25, 1917-November 13, 1917, 2242.

“To Submerge A Village,” New York Times, 9 June 1919, News section. “Where New York Will Get Water,” New York Times, 18 June 1905, News section. Secondary Sources: Ackerman, Bruce A. Private Property and the Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press,

1977.

Anderson, Letty, "Hard Choices: Supplying Water to New England Towns." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15, no. 2 (September 16, 2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/204881.

Burkalow, Anastasia, "The Geography of New York City’s Water Supply: A Study of Interactions." Geographical Review 49, no. 3 (September 15, 2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/211912.

Billington, David and Donald C. Jackson. Big Dams of the New Deal Era: A Confluence of Engineering and Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006.

Epstein, Richard A. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Francko, David and Robert Wetzel. To Quench Our Thirst: The Present and Future Status of Freshwater Resources of the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983.

Galusha, Diane. Liquid Assets: A History of New York City’s Water System. Fleischmanns: Purple Mountain Press, 1999.

Jackson, Donald. Building the Ultimate Dam: John S. Eastwood and the Control of Water in the West. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984.

Lee, Lawrence, "California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP," Agricultural History 54, no. 3 (September 16, 2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3742832.

Main, Carla T. Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land New York: Encounter Books, 2007.

Olivetti, Alfred M. Jr., and Jeff Worsham. This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land: The

Property Rights Movement and Regulatory Takings. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2003.

Pisani, Donald, "Enterprise and Equity: A Critique of Western Water Law in the Nineteenth Century," The Western History Quarterly 18, no. 1 (September 16, 2009), http://www.jstor.org/stable/968926.

Schneiderman, Jill. Ed. The Earth Around Us: Maintaining A Livable Planet. New York: W.H.





23

Freeman and Company, 2000.

Stradling, David. Making Mountains: New York City and the Catskills. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007.

Wahlstrom, Ernest. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 6: Dams, Dam Foundations, and Reservoir Sites. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974.

Wehr, Kevin America’s Fight Over Water: The Environmental and Political Effects of Large- Scale Water Systems. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Willrich, Ted. Water Pollution Control And Abatement. Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965.

‘the suffocation of gilboa:’ the construction of the...

Documents