The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-04-04
RIPARIAN RIGHTS
AFFECTED BY SUIT
Diversion Of James River Water
Involved i'll Appeal to
Supreme Court.
CITY MADE PARTY DEFENDANT
Old Dominion Works Claims
Grant From British Crown
Is Intcrfcred With.

Questions Of the highest Importance
in connection with riparian rights in
the James River at and above Rich
mond are involved in the case of the
old Dominion Iron and Nail Works
against the Chcsapcak and Ohio Rail-
way Company and the city OF Rich
mond in which an appeal was grant
ed yesterday by the Supreme Court.
The iron company. owner of Belle Isle.
gains point by reason Of the grant
ing of the appeal. which means that
the appellate court will hear the case
at later term. The suit comes up
from tho Law and Equity Court OF
this city.
road and the city are taking water
from the river at Bosher's Dam. nine
miles above Richmond. without war
rant in law: that vastly more water
is being taken than was permitted in
the ancient contract with the old canal
company; that the business of the iron
company is being injured because OF
this diversion OF water from the ma
tural channel, and that the taking OF
any water at all without restoring IL
to the river bed Is in contravention OF
the Constitution OF the United States
In that It impairs the obligation of :,
contract entered into between King
i.
the younger.
Was Granted by Crown.
the Old Dominion Iron and Nail
-!Sa-N'a' rw y:s 3stIc" iaSs:a -ag>sSt- .,f !s.ti
situated in James River at its falls
and within the corporate limits of the
city Of Richmond. IT was granted by
the British crown to William Byrd H.
on October 80, 1884 The appellant
has situated thereon plant said to
represent capital of 100000. and on
the Island are situated other enter
prises. lessecs from the owner. who
enjoy with it riparian rights.
To the great injury of its business.
the appellant claims. the water is be-
ing diverted from it's natural bed, and
large part is used by the city of
Richmond to make power for pumping
It's water supply 10 the mains This
diversion began when the James River
and Kanawha Canal Company success
sor 20 the old James River Company
built "A wing dam three miles above
the city. called Grants Dam. and used
IL for putting water in the canal
which was TO be the great internal
artery of commerce in Nirginin. Years
later the canal company and Its sue
ccssors, the Richmond and AlioEhany
Railroad Company and the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company, granted
to the city use OF water TO operate its
amount was To he 2S3 cubic feet Of
water per second. with the privilege Of
705 feet. Later the scene OF diversion
was moved upstream 10 Boshers Dam.
Rights Conveyed to City.
When the Chesapeake and Ohio. by
foreclosure, became owner of the prop
erty CT the Richmond and Allegheny.
1t gave TO the city the right to use all
the water to which the railroad was
entitled. IL is claimed that this has
grown until now the city uses more
than 500 feet per second. Therefore,
the iron company filed its bill in the
Law and Equity Court asking that this
diversion be discontinued, and that the
water be permitted to flow in its orig
inal channel
Demurrers- to the bill were hled by
the city and the railroad. the former
setting UP its claim that ii had a right
to use all the water for domestic pur-
poses of its citizens that flowed in the
James within or adjacent to the city
The railroad said that IL had the right
by prescription TO use the water to
carry out its charter obligations Both
demurrants held that the iron COM
Dany failed to show in itself or its pre-
decessors any right of property in the
bed or the water Of the James. These
demurrers were sustained by the court
and from this decision the appeal is
taken.
King Owned ThIewuter.
II is claimed in the petition that
King George had title to the sea and
10 the land under it. with rivers AS far
as the tide ran. The tide does not
come up TO Belle Isle, stopping mile
below. but il is argued that navigable
water was really meant, since tide
water and navigable water are practi-
cally Synonymous terms in the English
courts. The appellant claims that the
city has no right 10 the water for do
nestle purposes unless it condemns it,
which IL has not done. The increase
in use of water. IT is claimed, has taken
place within the past twenty years
this being put forth in opposition to
Il claim that the rights have expired
by limitation.
The petition was prepared by Mum
ford. Hunton. Williams & Anderson,
counsel for the appellant.
II is believed that in any event the
city will hardly be affected by the out
come of this litigation. II it can use
water from Bosher's Dam, it would be
willing to return 1t to the bed OF the
pumping station However, manufac-
turing plants along the lower level
canal in this city would be much dam
aged If that artificial stream were
stopped. and II is possible there would
be no water to supply the City Dock.
city Attorney Pollard has always
held that the Chesapeake and Ohio
has contract TO furnish water, and
that il must do it.