if the City was to "be to this country what London was to England."^ Pre-eminence had dire implications for the neighboring regions. The rural community or region which is the source of this precious natural resource will not only find itself under severe pressure to yield but will face a future in which a growing city will have a legitimate claim for more water. In 1825 Governor De Witt Clinton hinted at the inevitability of this development when he stated that, "It may be laid down as an incon- trovertible truth that no dense population can furnish from within its own limits an adequate supply of this indispensable accommoda- tion Clinton's calculus created a symbiotic relationship be- tween a rural resource and an urban need and bound the history of northern Westchester to New York's quest for water. Reviewing all the proposals, Colonel Clinton concluded that the Croton River source "may be considered as inexhaustible, as it is not all proba- ble that the city will ever require more than it can provide." Colonel Clinton based his selection of the Croton on calculations of New York's population growth and concluded that a source larger than the Bronx River and the Rye Ponds was required. Indeed, Clinton's calculations linked New York's population curve to the proportionate expansion of the Croton River dams and watershed. Clinton's report, a New York State Supreme Court ruling against the Manhattan Company, and the loss of around 3,000 lives from the cholera epidemic of 1832 pushed the Common Council and the State Legislature to act. On February 26, 1833, Governor William Marcy appointed five water commissioners who, in turn, engaged Canvass White and Major David B. Douglass to survey all the possi- ble sources. Based on White's and Douglass' report, the Water Commissioners recommended to the Common Council a dam of 130-150 feet in height and a reservoir to be built 6 miles from the mouth of the Croton. The Common Council agreed with the basic outline of the plan and submitted it to a public referendum where it easily carried. On May 7, 1835, the Council authorized a loan and appointed a chief engineer. Major Douglass. Work, however, did not begin on the Aqueduct for two more years until May 1837. The Water Com- missioners placed the blame for these delays on Major Douglass and replaced him in October 1836 with John B. Jervis. But Douglass was only partially responsible; he served as an easy scapegoat. The delay was a result of the protest of the landowners in Westchester, whose property was the first rural resource to be taken (figure 40). As early as 1833, when the State Legislature had granted the Water Commissioners power to conduct a survey, recommend a source, and condemn lands, Westchester farmers had opposed the project. They felt their property rights and their peace of mind threatened by the Croton project. In April 1835 Westchester resi- dent Theodorus C. Van Wyck drove his one-horse cart into Manhat- tan and distributed broadsides opposing the project at several polling places.^2 figure 40: Lt. Theophilus Schramke, Map of Croton Watershed and Aqueduct Route. From Description of the New York Croton Aqueduct in English, German and French. 1846 Courtesy William Lee Frost. Photo: J. Kennedy Panetta In 1836 the State Legislature felt pressure to act but was uncer- tain about what to do. Although New Yori< City voters endorsed the Aqueduct in the 1835 referendum, counter-pressure from West- chester petitioners who sought to reduce the powers of the Water Commissioners clouded the issue. Even concessions by the Water Commissioners to return any lands not specifically used for the Aqueduct and to build all the necessary fences and passes did not placate Westchesterites. A March 4, 1837, meeting of Westchester citizens, under the guidance of Van Wyck, prepared a memorial to the legislature condemning the Water Commissioners for extending the boundaries of New York City and "invading the historic manor of Cortlandt and the County of Westchester. "^^ The petitioners argued that because the State had granted the Water Commissioners the right to deprive owners of their property without their consent and against their will, that the Enabling Act was repugnant to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York." They asked that the act be repealed and that they be left, "as all good citizens should be left, free from any such intrusion or dis- seizin, peaceably to enjoy, retain or dispose of their respective real estate and property, as to them, respectively shall seem meet."^^ Writing nearly a century ago, historian Edward Wegmann dis- missed the protest rhetoric of the memorial as part of the attempt by landowners to inflate their property values, make negotiations more difficult, and force the State to condemnation proceedings. Wegmann characterized the opposition as