The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-26
Letters to the Editor.
RIGHT IN RUNNING WATER.
Unlawful Division and Pollution O
 Streams s Public Nuisance.

Unlawful Division ana foHutioh oh
 Streams Public Nuisance.
 Editor The Advertisers:
 I wish you would tell some of our statemen to stop for a moment from abusing those most damnabiy persis- tent developers of our country.-tne breath to consider the advisability of the next Legislature enacting. law declaring all unlawful diversion or pollution of our streams of water public nuisance.
 MT Theodore Price says the sum of $25, 100000 is being expended in North Carolina fo. rthe development CT wa ter powers to be used for manufactur-
 We all know that all over the South a large sum of money is being expend- and distribution of electric power; and it seems in the near future our cotton will be ginned and manufactured by electricity.
 when there will be placed at points along our public roads, huge electric storage batteries, furnishing power to till the fields, pick cotton by suction, gin and manufacture cotton. transport our products to market, while furnish ing lights for urban. and rural homes, streets and highways.
 We are persuaded the water in our streams Is a source of wealth equal to our iron and coal mines; and because of the universality of the use, is of a peCuildrly puDilC peuclit.
 Indeed, in recognition Of this, the courts have uniformly held that noth- ing but usufructuary property IS capable of being had in running water; yet as it seems to me, with equal uni- formity and with great inconsistency, they have held that an adverse user of running water for ten years gives title. or, an easement. which for practical purposes amounts to title. The courts have never seemed to consider that running water was like unto a wild animal. of wild and untameable dis position. incapable of adverse, posses sion: and so. when it escaped, 1t be- came, GO instant, free. Even the Ro man law. which. with few exceptions. acquired in servitudrs"whoseu usage was not continuous, seems to have made an exception of the right to draw wa ter. means of dam. or otherwise, threw water back upon and overflowed land and so kept it overflowed for a period of ten years. you would own the land under the water: but. when the title to running water is conceded to be In the public. and each successive unlaw- ful diversion creating a new, distinct, continuous nuisance, which. from the universalit| of the demand for and use of the thing taken. is. of necessity, a public nuisance. I cannot see how the user acquire for all practical purposes a title in a thing expressly declared not the subject of private ownership.
 The law, as now interpreted; Is me mace to those making large invest ments in water powers.
 For instance. you build your dam to supply Montgomery and the contiguous territory with electric lights and pow CT
 You find your flow of water, your rainfall. your water shed and your de- mand for lights and power, entirely
 You get your franchise. conceded to be of public nature. and you expend large sums of money for equipment.
 For vou to keep your supply of water. under the rule that ten years adverse user gives title to running water. you must put watch upon every riparian proprietor up stream; and this you must do. although it Is a trespass for you to go on another mans land, and although, user of wa ter by these several upper riparian owners is presumed rightful and such rtghtful user of water is not to be pre- sumed to ripen into an adverse user
 With the growth of population the rIghtfuI user of water increases inn mefisely, while with the destruction of timber the supply is said to decrease SO, 1t Is a hardship on the entire body politic to allow any one man by any length of time to acquire title to so indispensable things as running wa
 As We have no hopes from our