The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1919-02-27
D|SCHARG|NG WATER
FROM MINING PLANTS
DECISIONS IN CASES IN WHICH
RIPARIAN RIGHTS DO
NOT APPLY.

eering and Mining JournaD.
The pollution Of streams by mining
operations has already been discuss
ed. In the present paper those cases
will be considered where the mine OPP
orator or owner has discharged water
or other substances from his mining
property so that it will flow over the
land or property of another in obedi-
ence to the law of gravitation.
In the former discussion those
principles of law regarding the rights
and obligations of riparian owners in
respect to such matter as might be
brought from the mine and discharg-
ed into the stream were pertinent.
But the courts are agreed that the
principles governing riparian owners
do not apply in instances where water
is taken from a subterranean course,
brought to the surface, and discharg-
ed so that it will flow, according to
the lay of the land, upon the property
of another.
Riparian rights are something
which are acquired with notice by the
man who buys land adjoining a
stream; and the existence OF the
stream is notice to him that he must
accept the rights of mere riparian
owner. He can not exercise any 9TH
er right in such an instance, because
il he did so he would be in position
to cut off the rights of owners of 9TH
er land facing the stream who might
be below him. But when the owner
of land is not located upon the course
of a stream, even though his land Is
below that of mine owner, entirely
different principles of law apply in
case water is discharged from the
mine so that it will enter his land
and do damage to 1t.
When man buys land which Is
lower than adjoining land, he takes 1t
with notice that he can not hold the
owners Of the higher land liable for
such water damage as may flow on
his property by natural drainage, but
the mere fact that he is bound to ac-
cept the water flowing by natural
drainage from the land of another
does not give the owner of the high
er land the right to alter this flow or
to increase it so as to add to the reas-
enable natural flow of water upon
the land of the lower owner.
In other words, so long as the water
flowing onto the land of the lower
owner is the result of natural drain
age, the said lower, owner can not
complaint but If the water flowing
onto his land is the result of artifi-
cial means or methods adopted by the
higher owner, then he has some
rights which he may assert
Even though there is natural
drainage of considerable water onto
the land of the lower owner, no prin-
ciples of riparian ownership apply
and, even if water is flowing with
more or less regularity upon the land
of the lower owner, the mine owner
has no right to change its character
by adding to it's content any other
substance taken from the mine, nor
has he any right to add to its volume
by adding pure water to 1t, without
mourning liability.
This does not mean that the mine
owner whose mine is lcated at high
er point has no right to discharge
AtI met
own land. He has that right beyond
the shadow of doubt, and the low
Ell owner can not prevent his so do
ing, but the liability Of the mine
owner begins when such substances
or water pass from his own land onto
that of another.
The mine owner may not be held
liable, either, in case the discharge OF
water upon his own land subsequent
~ flows upon the land of another
but does no damage. This decision
was reached by the South Dakota
court holding that the land owner
had no right to enjoin the work of the
higher owner when such flowing OF
water across the formers land did
him no damage
lie the mine owner can, by slight
expense" prevent the water which ne
discharges from his mine or Other
operation from doing the lower land
owner any damage, he Is legally
bound to exert such means and spend
the money necessary to prevent sucf
damage being done. But, said the
Pennsylvania court, If this expense
would consume all the profits OF the
mining operation. then 1t Is clearly
unreasonable to hold the mine own.
er to such duty.
The court said: IF the expense Of
preventing the damage from his ac
Is such as to practically counterbal'
ance the expected profit or benefit
then II is clearly unreasonable ant
beyond what he could justly be called
upon to assume If, on the othel
hand, however large in actual amount
Il is small in proportion to the gair
to himself, it Is reasonable in regard
to his neighbours rights, and he should
pay 1t to prevent the damage, or HI
should make compensation for the In
,,,r,, do,a Patwaan these two eX