The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1898-04-29
The Pollution Of Streams.

The recent decisiOn-a most righteous
one-of the Connecticut court in the
somewhat noted Piper's Brook case has
aroused much interest throughout the
country, and people elsewhere than on
Piper's brook who are suffering from
such evils as did the plaintiff in that case
are asking if they are not entitled to
like relief: Among many communica-
tons which have come to hand upon the
subject one may be quoted as type. 1t
comes from a village in the suburbs of a
state, and complains of the pollution of
stream BY. the fnlouring of that city's
sewage. The writer is man of moder-
ate means. He has little home on the
banks of the stream. Often in summer
he and his family are driven from the
house by the stencil from the foul water.
The value of the place has been greatly
could now scarcely sell it Mt any price
He has not the money to engage in a suit
against the city. The stream flows
through dairy district, and much Of the
time the cattle will not drink its water.
The writer's brother started wooden
factory, but found the water too foul for
use in it, and had to abandon the works.
Typhoid fever and other diseases directly
attributable, to filth and polluted wa ter
often prevail there and claim many VIC
Tins. rs there no way" the writer asks,
'in which the evil can be abated?''
Yes; 1t is to be believed there is. A
city has no more right to maintain pub
lie nuisance than has an individual. The
tendency of recent statute legislation is
strongly against the pollution Of running
streams. A city, as an individual, may
through or past it, for business or for
pleasure, but it is bound to let the flow
proceed to its neighbors below in sub
stantially unimpaired quality and quanti-
ty. 1t has no more right to pollute the
stream than to divert it's course or to stop
its flow. Over and over again the courts
have held that all persons owning prop
erty along the banks of a stream are en-
titled to the use and enjoyment of the
water, and to have it flow in its natural
and accustomed course, without obstruc-
ton, diversion or corruption. And this IT,
tie never becomes void until an adverse
easement has been acquired. The fact
that the pollution is of long standing is
no excuse. It rather aggravates the fault.
Pollution of stream is a.public nuisance,
and to maintain a nuisance is a INSIDE
meanOr or crime, and persistence in such
an act is in itself an added offense against
the law. s. !.
It is a heavy undertaking for a single
individual of small means to enter into
litigation with a rich municipal corpora
ton. But it is monstrous thing for such
corporation, relying upon it's strength
and his weakness, to Cypress him, deprive
him Of his natural rights, destroy the
value OF his property, impair his happi-
ness and endanger his health and life. If
one man Is able to undertake the fight he
should be reasonably certain OF success
# he is not able it should be possible for
number Of sufferers to unite in case
against their despoiler. 1t would not take
many repetitions Of the Pipar's Brook
case to start q yeritable panic among mu-
nlcipal authorities, and to drive them,
Wholesale, to quit befoulng and poisoning
the waters of the land New York Trib-