Case Name: Indian Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Quitman, Tunica, and Panola Counties et al. v. Garrott et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1920-03
Citations: 123 Miss. 301
Docket Number: No. 21254
Parties: Indian Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Quitman, Tunica, and Panola Counties et al. v. Garrott et al.
Judges: Ethridge and Cook, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 301–353

Head Matter:
Indian Creek Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Quitman, Tunica, and Panola Counties et al. v. Garrott et al.
[85 South. 312,
In Banc.
No. 21254.]
1. Waters and Water Courses. Drainage: district may divert flood waters upon outside riparian owners on river 'from which overflow has spilled, without liability.
A drainage district, for its protection, has a legal right to reasonably levee against and divert vagrant flood waters upon outside riparian owners on the river from which the overflow waters have spilled and spread generally over the adjacent lands of the basin; the damage resulting therefrom is damnum absque injuria.
2. Waters and Water Courses. River outlets may be obstructed to restrain vagrant flood waters spreading out from- river channel.
The principle of. “Aqua currit et debet currere ut currere solebat” is not applicable to the obstruction of vagrant flood waters which pass through natural outlets of a river and spread over adjoining valley lands; the obstruction and diversion of regular and natural stream waters of the stream obstructed, and ordinary rain and surface waters collected, are within the maxim quoted. Such outlets may be obstructed in restraint of vagrant flood waters spreading out from the river channel.
3. Eminent Domain. Constitution does not contemplate compensation for damage without legal injury.
Section 17, Const, of Mississippi of 1890, providing that private property shall not be damaged for public use except on due compensation being first ma.de, does not contemplate compensation for damage without legal injury, as within the principle of damnum absque injuria.
Ethridge and Cook, JJ., ,dissenting.
Appeal from the chancery court of Quitman county.
Hon. J. G. McGowan, Chancellor.
Suit for injunction by T. M. Garrott and others against the Indian Creek Drainage District No. 1 of Q,uitman, Tunica, and Panola Counties' and others. From a decree overruling the motion to dissolve a temporary injunction theretofore granted, defendants appeal.
Reversed, and decree rendered for appellants.
This is an appeal from a deoree of the chancery court of Quitman county', Miss., overruling’ a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction theretofore granted the appellees, restraining and enjoining the appellants from repairing and extending a certain levee system constructed under the provisions of the act under which the drainage district has been organized.
The Indian Creek drainage district No. 1 comprises approximately forty-five thousand acres of land. It was organized on May 26, 1916; commissioners appointed, assessments levied; bonds issued and sold, and the general plans for the work necessary for the purposes of the district were approved by the court. One detail of the plan was the construction of a levee line extending from the northwest corner of the district to the southwest corner and along the entire western side thereof. The district contains lands in Quitman, Tunica, and Panola counties, Miss. The purpose of the levee system was to protect the land's included within the boundaries of the district from waters from the Coldwater river. The amount of the bonds authorized t,o be issued by the court was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; of this amount one hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars had been expended in construcltling the work in accordance with the plans and specifications; of the sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars, seventy-two thous- and dollars was spent in excavating the various ditches and cleaning out the bayous in the district, and sixty-three thousand dollars was expended in constructing the levee.
During the early spring of 1919 an unusually large amount of water came down Coldwater river and overflowed its banks in a number of places, a portion of which overflow wafer was dammed up by the levee. The levee line was not entirely completed, and in two places where the work had not been finished the levee broke, releasing; some of the water, and flooding approximately ten thousand acres or land 'in the district. The levee line is situated from one to seven miles east of Coldwater river, the line touching Coldwater river at its northern end1, and, when completed, will touch it at its southern end, Coldw'ater river making a big bend to the west between these two points. The appellees are all landowners, owning land on the western! side of the said levee line, between it and the river, and many also on the western side of Coldwater river.
On account of the great importance of the decision of the questions involved we shall set out the substance of the pleadings in full, so that the case may be understood in its entirety. The proof follows the pleadings.
The Bill.
The original bill filed by the appellees describes generally the location and organization of the said drainage district and Coldwater river. They also allege that a large part of the land belonging to complainants is situated between the drainage district and Coldwater river, and that the lands belonging to complainants are much higher and better lands than the lands in the said drainage district; that the lands of complainants prior to the construction of the said levee were high and above overflow, and further allege, in addition to the levee on the western boundary of the said drainage district, there was a levee on the northérn boundary of the said district, and on the south side of Coldwater river, which was probably constructed by a small drainage district north of the defendant district, but charge that! the said northern levee was in the defendant district and a part of the drainage and protection plan and scheme of the defendant district. The bill further alleges that the overflow waters from Coldwater river escape naturally in a southern and eastern direction, and prior to the construction of said levee the flood waters from said river flowed naturally to the east and south through the western part of the said drainage district into David ' bayou, Burrell bayou, and other bayous in the said district, and through the depressions in the land, finally returning to Coldwater river through Burrell bayou and through various small bayous and depressions in the land; that the said levee as constructed crosses and dams up several natural water courses, among others Rifle chute, which prior to the -construction of the said levee was and had been for time out of mind the natural and proper outlet and way of escape for the overflow waters of Coldwater river, which flowed into Pompey Lake, and thence east through said chute into D'avid bayou, and thence in a southerly direction into Burrell bayou, and returned to said Coldwater river, at the 'mouth of said Burrell bayou, several miles south of the southern line of the said drainage district; that said Rifle chute was and is a natural water course, with a well-defined bed and banks, through which the waters originally and usually, and for time out of mind, have flowed; that the said chute is completely dammed up by the levee on the west side of the district, and that said levee also dammed up a small natural water course about one-half of a mile south of the said Rifle chute, through which the flood waters flowed naturally, and have always flowed toward and emptying into David bayou, which was and is also dammed .up by the said levee in the same manner in which the said Rifle chute is obstructed; that the said levee also crosses and obstructs many other sags and swales and chutes and depressions through which the flood waters from Cold-water river have always flowed naturally to the east and south through the lands now in the said drainage district, finding its way back into the said Coldwater river at points to the south; that at the junction of the said levee on the west of the said district, and said levee on the north of said district, the said levee crosses and dams up the said David bayou; that the said north levee also dams up and obstructs, several escapes for the water of said Ooldwater river. The bill further alleges that it is the purpose and'intention of the said district to extend the levee south to a point on the bank of said Ooldwater river above overflow, and to repair the breaks in the said levee, and to enlarge and strengthen the said levee so as to completely prevent the escape of any of the overflow waters of the said river to the south and east from the east point of said north levee to the south point of the said west levee.
The bill further alleges that there has recently been an overflow of Ooldwater river, caused by excessive rains; that the said overflow was in excess of the usual annual overflow of the said river, but was by no means unusual or unprecedented, and was not in excess, of many floods or overflows of the said river which have occurred in recent years, and was not in excess of the floods and overflows which are likely to occur at any time during the wet .season; that because of the existence of said levee, the waters of the river in said recent overflow were diverted and thrown back upon the lands of complainants, which had heretofore been entirely above overflow from the said river; that most of the land’s of complainants, which had never theretofore been overflowed by the river, were entirely inundated to a great depth, and much of the said lands which had been previously partially overflowed, and overflowed slightly, and upon which the water had remained only for a short time, and had done little or no damage, was overflowed to a great depth.
The bill further alleges that if the levees are repaired and completed and strengthened, so as to prevent the escape of the water, it will so seriously damage their said lands that they will be practically valueless; that the said lands so damaged are in a high state of cultivation, and are of the best class of delta lands; that the lands without the district are more valuable than the lands within the district.
The bill further alleges that neither the complainants nor the owners of the other lands so affected and damaged by the said levees were parties to the creation and organization of the said district, and had no notice to appear at the organization of the said district, or at any'other time, to protect or defend their interests; that complainants did not know of the plan and scheme of the said district to build and construct the said levee, and did not, until the recent flood, above referred to, know of the results or consequences of the construction of the said levees; that there has been no effort to condemn any of the landsl of these complainants, or to ascertain, or to allow or pay for such damage; that if defendants are allowed to repair the breaks in the said levee and to extend the said levee and to strengthen and maintain the said levee, the results wlould be perpetual and continuing, and irreparable injury and damages to the said lands of complainants and to all of the other lands between the said levee and Coldwater river and along and near the west banks of the Coldwater river; that complainants are without any adequate remedy at law, and have no recourse for their protection, except to come into this honorable court.
The prayer of the bill was for an injunction restraining the defendants from repairing the breaks and from extending the levee or strengthening the levee, or any act in connection with said levee which 'will prevent the escape of the w’aters of Coldwater river in the usual and proper way, and upon final hearing the court was asked to make a mandatory order, requiring the defendants'to remove the said levee, or to so dismantle and destroy the same that it will not cause damage to the lands of complainants. Complainants also asked that the damages to their lands already accrued by reason of the said levee, and all damages that may accrue until the final decree in this cause, may be ascertained in such manner as to the court may seem proper.
The Answer. •
The defendants (appellants here) filed an answer, admitting the organization of the district, admitting the district was organized for a twofold purpose: (1) Protection of the lands within the district from overflow waters from Coldwater river; and] (2) providing an adequate system of drainage for said lands within the district. The answer charges that Coldwater river rises in Marshall county, Miss., and runs in a westward and southward direction for two hundred and fifty miles, being through the hills, and one hundred and twenty miles through what is known as the “delta lands;” that Coldwater river is a comparatively small river, with an average width of about fifty yards:, flowing between banks about twenty-five feet high; that the channel of this stream is amply sufficient to contain the ordinary waters of the river, but in time of floods or freshets, owing to the large drainage area of the stream in the hills, its channel is insufficient to hold its flood waters, and such flood waters, passing over its banks spread over the lands both east and west of the river, flooding to various depths according to the flood stage, a body of land from six to eighteen miles in width and about forty miles in length, comprising approximately three hundred and fifty thousand acres of land, all extremely fertile, capable of being put into cultivation and of producing large yields of agricultural crops of every description if drained and protected from these flood waters. Owing to the great fertility of the soil and' to the fact that these flood's come only once or twice annually, and frequently recede so as to permit the making of crops, many thousand acres of this land have been put into cultivation and homes and villages are scattered over it, and it is intersected by a through line of railroad; that such flood waters do not constitute a part of the channel of Coldwater river, but they become vagrant surface Waters with many cross currents, spreading out in various directions, according to the levels of the land,, broken up' by the narrow fringes of land along either bank, and by higher bodies of land hack from the river, which become islands, and by the banks of the various bayous and creeks which are higher than the lands back of them, and become ridges, and all of said flood waters have a general tendency southward until they join the river further down; that within the past two years two large drainage districts have been created in the hills, the Hickahala and Arkabutla drainage districts, both draining the land embraced in them into the Coldwater river in the hills, the area drained by the two districts being about two hundred and sixty thousand acres; that the formation of these drainage districts, the system of' drains and canals which they have had dug, draining this vast area into Coldwater river, has materially increased its flood height, and as a result a large proportion of the lands in the delta along' the river are affected by its floods, and the necessity of taking measures, to guard against such floods has become imperative.
The answer further charges that at the time of the formation of the Indian Creek drainage district No. 1, which embraces about forty-ifilve thousand acres of land, about twenty-jfilve thousand acres of same were in cultivation, but the cultivation of it had always been more or less precarious and unsatisfactory, owing to the danger of it's being overflowed by Coldwater river, and, for the reasons stated, this danger was increased, and for the same reason the clearing up and putting into cultivation' of the woodland in the district, which was .capable of being cleared upi and reduced to a high state of cultivation, was deferred. The Coldwater river leaves the hills a short distance north of this drainage district, and,' after flowing westward for a short distance, turns in a southerly direction, and for about thirteen miles flows southerly at a distance of from one td eight miles from the western boundary of the district. Whatever may have been the condition in ages gone by, the lands within this district have never within the memory of man constituted a part of the channel of the Coldwater river, but have been more or less flooded by the vagrant surface waters, finding their way over the banks of the river, in flood time, and the lands of the drainage district have acted as a reservoir for such surface waters while they were finding their way southward to the river. In considering, the formation of the district, it became necessary to protect the lands of the district from the flood waters of the liver; without such protection the benefit which could be rendered the land by the digging of ditches and canals and cleaning out of natural streams in the district in order to take off the rainwater was not sufficient to justify the expense to the landowners, and such land would have remained partially cleared and poorly cultivated indefinitely; that the levee has been constructed accordingly to the plans and specifications approved by. the chancellor, so as, while affording protection to the district, to damage just as little as possible the lands outside of the district, including the lands mentioned in the bill of complaint; that while, as defendants are informed, believe, and state, the question of interference with surface waters resulting from ordinary rainfall is not involved in this suit, and there is no complaint in regard to this made in. the bill, yet to show the care taken and the expense incurred by the district in constructing said levee so as not to interfere with or damage the land outside of the district, defendants charge that better drainage facilities for ordinary surface water were afforded to all lands lying between the river and the western boundary of the district than they enjoyed before the creation of the district, a canal being constructed in conjunction with the levee from the northern end of the levee southward along the western base of the levee intoi a large bayou known as Open Mouth bayou, which drains into the Coldwater river, said canal having an average width of thirty-eight feet, and being about ten feet deep; that by means of the canal better drainage was afforded to the surface water of the lands adjacent to and west of the district than such lands had before, and ordinary freshets from Coldwater river will be carried off more rapidly and with less damage to the lands west of the district than before. And defendants denied complainants were not advised of the creation of the district, and the plans and specifications therefor; that the general opinion shared in by complainants was that the construction of the levee and canal, instead of injuring their lands, would prove to- be a benefit to them; that a number of the complainants have purchased the lands now owned by them since this district was formed and the work begun therein, and none of the complainants ever interposed any objection to the creation of the district or to the construction of said levee.
The answer also charges that the levee intersects no stream or waterway extending from Coldwater river westward. The answer admits the crossing’; of Riñe chute and the depression half of a mile south thereof by the levee. The answer charges that neither Rifle chute nor the depression lead out of Coldwater river, but they originate about a- mile east of said river; that Rifle chute is not a flowing’ stream under ordinary conditions, but simply a conduit connecting Pompey Lake, which lies just outside of the district, with David bayou, which lies within the district; that the flow of Rifle chute is from David bayou to the west of Pompey Lake, there being a four-foot fall in the bed of the chute from said bayou to the said lake; that none of the complainants are riparian owners, owning any land on either Pompey Lake or Rifle chute; that neither Rifle chute nor the depression serve to carry off the flood waters of Cold-water river; that the flood waters of said river, having flowed over its hight banks, find their way back, not through any stream, but in a broad sheet flowing over all of the lowlands / and spreading] over the district almost in a body. Defendants state they had a right to levee against flood water, and the injury to complainant’s lands does not result in any way from the stoppage of any natural water course, but simply in depriving complainants of the use of the lands of the drainage district as a reservoir for the flood waters of Coldwater river; that the damage to complainants’ lands was caused by excessive and unusually high flood waters, there being ad eight or nine inch rainfall in twenty-four hours. Defendants denied that.the complainants advised that any of them were injured by said flood waters by reason of the levee constructed by the drainage district; admitted that the flood waters were raised from five to ten inches by the levee, not because said levee intersected Rifle chute or the depression south of it, but simply because the levee prevented said floodwaters from spreading over the lands of the drainage district and using such lands as a reservoir, and any damage sustained by complainants by the increased flood level was not due to any wrongful conduct on the part of the defendants, but solely due to the efforts of defendants, to protect their lands from the vagrant surface water, and for., any such damage defendants are not liable. Defendants admitted that but for the levee some of the flood waters of the river would have found their way through Rifle chute, some through the depression south of Rifle chute, some broadcast over the land, but not appreciably more would have gone through Rifle chute or the depression south of it than through a gap of similar area anywhere in the levee along its entire length. In the answer defendants charge that the lands of the district have very much enhanced in value since the creation of the drainage district, and a great many additional thousands of acres of woodland have been put into cultivation and the cleared land much enhanced in value; and defend ants denied that the lands of complainants are greater in area or greater in value than the lands of the drainage district, or that the lands of complainants were above overflow and would have been unaffected by this flood water except for the levee o.f the drainage district, but, on the contract, state that all of said lands would have been affected by such flood water except probably a narrow fringe immediately along the banks of the river; defendants denied they have built a levee across the head of David bayou, where it comes out of Coldwater river, but charged that more than twenty-five years ago a dam was put across the head of David bayou to prevent such flood waters flowing from the river into the bayou, and such dam has been continually maintained ever since, and protects from these flood waters the land in the northern part of the district immediately along David bayou, which lands have been cleared and improved; that they have done nothing toward either the construction, enlarging or maintenance of this dam, but they are informed they are entitled to have said dam remain where it is.
Under agreement of counsel the cause was heard on affidavits and oral testimony before the chancellor.
The motion to dissolve the injunction was overruled by the chancellor, to which exception was reserved and appeal was granted, and from this decree overruling the motion to dissolve the injunction, this appeal is prosecuted.
The Evidence.
At a hearing before the chancellor, L1. L. Hidinger, a witness on behalf of the defendants, testified that he was a hydraulic drainage engineer in charge of the Indian Creek drainage district Nio. 1; that it was created to remove local rainwaters that fall upon the land, and to protect the land in the district from overflow from Cold-water river; that two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of bonds had been sold, of which one hundred and thirty- five thousand dollars had been expended in construction works, seventy-two thousand dollars of which had been expended in excavating the canals, and sixty-three thousand dollars in the construction, of the levees; that forty-five miles of the drainage canals had been dug exclusive of the canal adjacent to the levee, which is known as Borrowpit canal; that the lands within the district are very fertile, being alluvial soil known as delta land; that about five thousand acres had been cleared prior to the formation of the district, and since the formation of the district from nine thousand to ten thousand acres had been cleared. Referring to the levee, Mr. Hidinger states that the levee starts at the high bank of Goldwater river, about three miles northwest of Crenshaw, Miss., in section 35, township 6 south, range 10 west, and .extends southwesterly for about three miles; thence due south for four miles; thence southwesterly for about four miles; thence to the east bank of Coldwater river; thence southwesterly along the bank of Goldwater river about one mile. The plan for the district requires that the material excavated for the construction of the levee be taken from the west side, and that Borrowpit be left in such manner as to form a continuous channl. The plan calls for the canal to be constructed along this levee until it reaches Open Mouth bayou, in section 17, township 8 south, range 10' west, and that it shall connect with the bayou so that there1 will be a continuous channel connecting with Coldwater river. The purpose is to. prevent Coldwater river from overflowing the lands of the district. And he further states that the construction' of the levee is very vital to a large percentage of the lands in the district; that the canal to the west of the levee varies from thirty-seven to forty feet at the top, and averages about ten feet in depth; that it offers an important outlet for the water falling on the land between the canal and Goldwater river; that Goldwater river is a stream about two hundred and fifty miles in length; fifty per cent, in the hills and fifty per
cent, in the delta; that the river varies in width from one hundred and twenty-five feet to three hundred feet, top to top of hank, and in depth from fifteen to thirty-five or forty feet; that the river is from one to seveni miles from the western boundary of the district; that” the channel of the river will carry off satisfactorily the. ordinary rains, but during excessive rains it is inadequate throughout its entire length;. that in times of flood, such as the flood of 1919’, the river spreads out and overflows the lands, the overflow varying in width from five to six miles to eighteen or twenty miles; that at a point near the middle of the district the width of the flood plain of Coldwater river is from fifteen to eighteen miles, about eight miles east of the river, and the remainder on the west side,; that Coldwater river is a typical alluvial stream, that is, the banks of the river being from two to three feet higher than the lands a mile or so away; that the flood plain of Coldwater river is composed of broad flats, with occasional bayous and ridges, the ridges being cultivated.
Referring to the levee on the north line of the district, Mir. Hidinger states that this levee had been built when he was in the district in 1996; that the removal of this particular levee so- as to permit the flood waters to run down David bayou would lower the stage of Cold-water river somewhat, but not a great deal; that no continuous streams flowing from Coldwater river are crossed by the levee in the entire length of the levee on. the west side of the district; that Rifle chute connects Pompey Lake and David bayou; that Rifle chute is not a running stream, merely a conduit between Pompey Lake and David bayou; that Pompe}’ Lake is a depression in the flat woods, and has no direct connection with Coldwater river, the distance between the river and Pompey Lake at the nearest point being between three-quarters of a mile and a mile; that Rifle chute slopes westwardly from David bayou to Pompey Lake; that there was an unusual railfall in 1919, averaging four and one-half inches in two days the water passing down the valley more rapidly than usual, and had it not been for the levee, seventy to seventy-five per cent, of the district would have been flooded, that part which would not have been flooded being situated near the Drills; that in 1919 the flood water backed against the levee to a height of five to six feet; that no breaks occurred where the levee was wholly completed, but three or four gaps washed out where the levee was uncompleted. Mr. Hidinger testified that in his opinion the effect of the levee would raise the flood waters to the west a comparatively small amount, probably less than a foot; that the height of the flood in 1919 was due to the construction of the canals, in the Hickahala and Arkabutla districts, situated north of the Indian Cr'eelc drainage district; that said two districts drain about two hundred and sixty thousand acres of land, the effect of which was to hasten the water into the valley ; that the flood waters of Coldwater river, after they get out of the channel, flow across the country, and if the flood is high enough it goes over the ridges or between, and works through bayous to the flat country; that ordinarily there is no uniformity in the waters; that as to ordinary floods in Coldwater river, the Borrowpit canal will carry off moderate floods much more rapidly, but as to heavy floods the canal is inadequate, and the woods to the west thereof are overflowed; that the drainage between the channel and west of the channel is facilitated and benefited, and as to ordinary floods the land is benefited by the construction of the canal, as the flood waters are taken off more quickly by the ditches ; that as it is now constructed the levee causes the least damage, and is in the most favorable location as to the lands without the district; that the levee was constructed under the plans of the Indian Creek drainage district, which were approved by the commissioners and adopted and apprdved by the court.
Mr. Hidinger further testified that in times of high water the water comes out of Coldwater river over the banks and through the bayous and openings and depressions in the banks, and spreads out over the country, filling the bayous and lakes, and running over from these bayous and lakes into and over the adjacent country; that the only water course crossed by the levee which connects directly with Coldwater river is Forked Neck lead, running northeasterly from Open Mouth bayou; that Forked Neck lead is a little depression which extends a short distance from Open Mouth bayou, being nothing, more than a little depression, and plays out in the woods; that two flats that do not deserve the name of bayou are intersected by the levee, both being mere depressions in the land, and play out in the woods; that no bayou mailing up and leading out of Coldwater river is crossed by the levee; that Crocket Lake lead, crossed by the levee, extends out as a distinct channel about a quarter of a mile; that Crocket Lake is not a flowing stream, but during high water the water passes out and spreads from this depression; that Crocket Lake ceases to have a distinct channel about one thousand feet from the levee; that the lands between Coldwater river and Pompey Lake are low flat woodlands up. to about half of a mile of the river, and then the lands are cultivated. This witness was corroborated by others.
The appellees (complainants below) introduced a great number of witnesses, and established by competent testimony several propositions. ■ They testified that overflows occur frequently from the Coldwater river about every year;, that such overflow varied in height, the overflow of Í906 being the highest known to the witnesses until the overflow of 1919, and this was higher in some places and not as high in others as that of 1906; that at the southern end of the levee the overflow of 1919 rose more rapidly than the water had done in preyious overflows before the construction of the levee; that the overflow water from the river, after getting over the high hanks of the river or through depressions in these banks, flows eastward, toward the lower land back toward the front of the hills and thence in a general southerly direction toward the river again; that the levee intercepts the flow of this sheet of overflow water for the entire length of the levee, causing it to rise higher at the levee on the west side of it, and protecting the land on the east side of the levee from the flood waters; in other words, preventing the use of the acreage of this levee district as a reservoir for flood waters.
Frequent mention is made of Crocket Lake lead, McNeil bayou, Dry bayou, Coon bayou, P’ompey Lake, Rifle chute, David bayou, Open Mouth bayou, and Forked Neck Lake lead, and as to flood waters flowing from a slough adjoining the river near the northern end of the levee through a small ditch into the canal on the western side of the levee. The gist of this testimony is that the levee of the district intersects the two water courses, Rifle chute and Forked Neck Lake lead (David bayou was dammed more than twenty-five years ago at its northern end, this dam having1 been maintained continuously since). Beginning at the northern end of the district, Crocket Lake lead is a channel extending a few hundred yards back from the river bank, and, to use the expression of E. K. Leach, one of the witnesses for appellees, “it peters out” in the open woods a short distance back from the river edge, and more than one hundred feet west of the levee. McNeil bavou is a bayou which makes out of the river and backs into it west of the levee, and is not affected bv the levee. Coon bavou, or Dry bayou, makes out of McNeil bayou and- disappears in the open woods between that bayou and P'ornnev Lake, no distinct bayou connecting P'omoey Lake and Dry bayou. Pompey Lake is a lake situated in the woods something over a mile east of the river bank, not connected with the river. Rifle chute is a conduit about a half of a mile in length, serving to connect Pompey Lake with David bayou. The slope of the bed of the chute is from David bayou to Pompey Lake. When the river is in flood the flow of the water is from Pompey Lake by Rifle chute to David bayou, that is eastward, as is the flow of all the flood waters of the river. The levee is built across Rifle chute. Open Mouth bayou is a channel into which the canal on the west of the levee empties, thus mailing a continuous ditch to drain the land lying between the levee and the river, so fa'r as rainwater is concerned. At the upper end of Open Mouth bayou two prongs, one making to the northwest and one to the northeast, the latter known as Forked Neck lead, is crossed by the levee. About half of a mile east of where the levee crosses it this lead disappears out into a flat country. Forked Neck Lake lead and Open Mouth bayou are ordinarily dry channels. In periods of rainfall they serve to drain the water off into Cold-water river. In periods of floods in Coldwater .river the water first comes down from above into Open Mouth bayou and. the river, and later, as the river gets full, backs up Open Mouth bayou, Forked Neck Lake lead, and spreads out into the open country toward Sledge and the foot of the hills generally, and. thence down Burrell bavou into the river. As stated, the two water channels which this testimony shows are intersected by the levee are the conduit leading from David bayou to Pompey Lake, namely Rifle chute, and the little prona’ of Open Mouth bayou, known as Forked Neck lead, which is intersected by the levee about half a mile west of its course. This testimony shows that not- one of the complainants own any land upou Rifle chute, Pompev Lake. Open Mouth bavou, or Forked Neck Lake Lead: that their claim's as riparian owners in connection with these so-called bavous are based exclusively upon their interest in the flood waters of Cold-water river by reason of their owning lands on one side or the other of the river at distances of from two to twelve miles from these water channels. There is no complaint by any witness as to any interference with the flow of rainwater. It seems to be conceded that the plan of the drainage district for carrying off the rainwater falling on the land between the levee and Coldwater river by means of the canal along the west side of the levee is effective, and affords better drainage to this land than it" enjoyed before the construction of the levee.
The proof in the case sustains the material parts of the bill sufficiently to present the questions of law involved. Some parts of the answer material to the issues of fact and law are conclusively proven. There seems to be very little conflict in the proof.
Percy S Percy and Holmes & Sledge, for appellant.
P. H. Lowrey and Breiver & Breiver, for appellee.

Opinion:
Holden, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The gist of the complaint of the landowners between the levee and the river and west of the river is: First, that the commissioners of the levee district have no right to levee against vagrant flood waters which have left the channel of Coldwater river and spread over the adjacent lands of the valley, thereby causing irreparable injury by diverting the water upon their lands; second, that if the levee commissioners have such right, then in exercising it they have no authority to obstruct the outlets or natural water courses connecting with the river through which its flood waters pass and spread generally over the lands of the valley, and eventually return to the channel many miles below.
The levee commissioners contend that they have both rights under the law; that the damming against flood waters is a right which includes obstructing outlets of the river. The commissioners claim, however, that the second right has not been exercised here because the outlets are not connected with the river, are not proper water courses, and that the complainants are not riparian owners. These claims are relatively material, as will be seen later on, but we shall consider the two main questions involved while assuming* there is no merit ini the latter claims of the commissioners, so we may go directly and definitely to the two very important and decisive points in the case.
On the first proposition we think that when the flood waters left the channel of Coldwater river and spread for miles upon the lands in, the basin or adjacent valley, they are to be characterized as vagrant flood waters as distinguished from ordinary surface 'or rain waters, or regular running stream waters. ~*
The complaint of appellees is not against the obstruction of the latter kind of waters, but it is against the damming of the flood waters that left the river channel and spread indiscriminately for miles over the land in-the' basin. A portion of these waters were wont to pass out further into the basin through outlets that were obstructed by the levee; therefore we shall now deal solely with vagrant flood waters, against which the levee Avas built for protection, and which resulted in damaging appellees by diverting them upon their lands.
The question then is, Did the leAUe commissioners haAre the legal right to protect the lands in the district by leveeing against these Avaicrs, and thus incidentally throAving them upon the oAvners outside of. the district? We think so.
Such diversion of vagrant flood waters, Adíen incident to and reasonably necessary, to the effective protection of the lands in the levee district, is Avithin the phrase "damrmm absque injuriaThe damages resulting are Avithout legal injury, and must be borne for the common good. The act causing the damage is done for protection against the common enemy — roaming flood waters. It is similar in principle to the right to protect, from violence against an outlaw who runs amuck, even! though a neighbor is incidentally hurt ini the exercise of the right.
This doctrine has been approved by our courts before and since the adoption of our Constitution of 1890. We find it expressed in the cases of Board of Levee Commissioners v. Harkleroads, 62 Miss. 807; Richardson & May v. Levee Commissioners, 68 Miss. 539, 9 So. 351; Richardson v. Board of Levee Commissioners, 77 Miss. 518, 26 So. 963; Kansas, City, etc., Railroad Co. v. Smith, 72 Miss. 677, 17 So. 78, 27 L. R. A. 762, 48 Am. St. Rep. 579; Ham v. Levee Commissioners, 83 Miss. 534, 35 So. 943; Holman v. Richardson, 115 Miss. 169, 76 So. 136, L. R. ,A. 1917F, 942.
The principle is also announced and applied by the supreme court of the United States in the cases of Jackson v. United States, 230 U. S. 1; 33 Sup. Ct. 1011, 57 L. Ed. 1363; Hughes v. United States, 230 U. S. 24, 38 Sup. Ct. 1019, 57 L. Ed. 1374, 46 L. R, A. (N. S.) 624, and Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission, 241 U. S. 351, 36 Sup. Ct. 671, 60 L. Ed. 1041.
The Arkansas court in McCoy v. Board of Directors, 95 Ark. 345, 129 S. W. 1097, 29 L. R, A. (N. S.) 396, announces and approves this doctrine, notwithstanding it had before it a constitutional provision identical with our section 17 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. Section 17, it is true, adds the right to recover .for property ' ' damaged " for public use. Such right existed, however, prior to- the Constitution of 1890 under statute, but the right to recover damages for the diversion of Mississippi river vagrant flood waters was always denied. See Richardson Case, 68 Miss. 539, 9 So. 351, and Harkleroads Case, 62 Miss. 807, supra.
At all events, our judgment is that section 17, Constitution of '1890, does not contemplate damages resulting without legal injury, as in the case at bar. Section 238 of the Constitution of 1890 merely provides what was already the law as announced in the Harhleroads Case, supra. This section, however, does indicate the policy of the state to be that damages are not recoverable on account of diverted flood waters. We do not see why the rule should apply only to riparian owners on the Mississippi river. Where the same conditions exist, similar reasoning would also apply to interior rivers with reference to the right to protect against vagrant flood waters. We think the same rule should and does apply to interior rivers, under the same conditions, in dealing with flood waters. The authorities from other states cited by appellees are not controlling in our state.
Coming now to the second question as to the right to obstruct the outlets or water courses connected with the river, we shall proceed at once to the point.
There is no complaint in this case about obstructing the water courses, and thereby diverting the natural and regular flow of the waters of these channels. But the evil complained of is the obstruction against the vagrant flood waters which would partly pass out upon the valley through these outlets. These water courses or outlets were inactive bayous, sloughs, and depressions which amounted to mere conduits! or passageways for foreign flood waters. They' were not natural running streams nor regular flowing water courses. It is true some of them contained waters of their own, but it ordinarily flowed in no direction. There was no regular and continuous current in these natural water courses. The levee did not interfere with the flow of their own waters, because they had no flow except that produced by the flood waters from the river. Therefore the levee obstructed only flood waters which at unusual times passed through these outlets or conduits. The principal function of the outlets was to assist in carrying off flood waters which had left the river channel and spread over the outlying lands. These flood waters would pass partly through these outlets, hut the greater portion would spread over the land south and east for several miles, and then filially go hack into the river channel. These flood waters did not pursue these outlets and return directly to the river channel through them, hut they spread out for several miles over the lands and. into the bayous, sloughs, and depressions before returning to the river.
We think the levee commissioners had a right to build the levee across these outlets in order to protect against the flood waters. Such obstruction did not interfere with the natural flow of their own surface or rain water, nor the regular original channel water of these outlets. There was a canal, immediately west of the levee, which efficiently carried off all ordinary surface water. Unless a levee could be built across these depressions and bayous, it would be ineffective for the purpose intended, and protection against the flood waters would be thus denied appellants.
We do not intend to hold, nor to leave the impression, that there can be no recovery for obstructing and diverting the regular flow of natural running streams, or for collecting] and diverting surface or rain water to the injury of another. We say that, assuming the water courses in this case are natural water courses from a legal standpoint, still there is no complaint of obstruction of their own flowing waters, and no complaint of obstruction to any other waters of their own, but the case here is against obstructing and diverting vagrant flood waters; and we hold that the law authorized the obstruction of these waters. See cases of Jackson, Hughes, and Cubbins, supra. To illustrate: The channel of Coldwater river could not be obstructed, nor could any of its tributary streams be dammed if of such substantial importance as would result in diverting its own regular flow upon the lands of another. But such is not the case here.
We find from the written opinion of the chancellor who tried this case that his decision in favor of the appellees was controlled, reluctantly, by the Cannon Case, 81 Miss. 334, 33 So. 81, and the Carrier Case, 103 Miss. 324, 60 So. 326. We think the chancellor construed these decisions too broadly, and gave them an effect beyond that which was. in the mind of the court at the time.
The chancellor expresses an opinion that the outlets are natural water courses, and for that reason the levee board had no authority to obstruct them by leveeing across them. This finding of fact will not be ignored; but let us see what the chancellor meant by holding that these outlets were natural water courses such as were involved in the Cannon and Carrier Cases, supra.
It is true these outlets were natural water courses as distinguished from artificial water courses, but they carried no regular running' streams, -with a current that carried their own waters in any direction, unless rain or surface waters. We do not understand that one can obstruct the current or flow of water that does not move in some direction. The most that can be said is that these outlets were mere conduits or passageways, with no regular flowing waters, except rain or surface waters, and passed those waters caused by unusual floods of the Coldwater river. Gullies and ditches which are ordinarily dry may be termed natural water courses whose own natural waters could not be obstructed and diverted to the injury of another, under the case of Ferris v. Wellborn, 64 Miss. 29, 8 So. 165, yet where they are obstructed solely to protect against vagrant flood waters which infrequently pass back out through them from another overflowed stream the rule is different.
The maxim, "Aqua eurrit et debet eurrere ut eurrere solebat," as applied in the Cannon Case, supra, has no application to vagrant flood waters; ánd we do not think the court had in mind flood waters when it decided the Cannon Case. The court seems to have held that Burr bayou, which was obstructed in that case, was a natural water course, but it also seems clear1 that the court considered that — "Burr bayou is a natural water course, making off from and flowing* out from the Tallahatchie river, in which the water flowed in a well-defined natural water course."
It seems that Burr bayou was a running stream which if dammed up would result in injury to riparian owners because the regular flow of the stream would be obstructed and diverted upon the bordering owners. If this is a true interpretation of the facts in the mind of the court in that case, then it will be easily seen that the bayous and depressions that were obstructed in the case at bar were a different kind of natural water course, in that a different character of waters were obstructed ; therefore the rule there announced is not applicable in the case before us. If we have correctly interpreted the Cannon Case, then the Carrier Case is not in the way here, because that decision seems to have resulted from following the Cannon Case. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that the court in either of these oases, or in the Hughes Case, 27 So. 744, was attempting to deal with vagrant flood waters. The doctrine that no recovery can be had for diverting flood waters upon the land of riparian owners had been so long established in this state, and the United States .Supreme Court had so ably announced this rule, and the fact that this question had been so often discussed and decided with reference to the Mississippi river:— most of these discussions and. decisions being in view of the court when the Cannon and Carrier Cases were decided — leads us to say that the question of protecting against flood waters was not in the mind of the court when these decisions were rendered.
In the Harkleroads Case, supra, which decision was rendered in 1885, this court said, in substance, that vagrant flood waters are a common enemy of the public, and that no compensation could be allowed to riparian owners who were damaged on account of such waters being thrown upon them by the levee, and that damages were not recoverable for the closing of natural outlets connected with the river, thus recognizing the doctrine of dammrni atysque injuria.
The Richardson Case, 68 Miss. 539, 9 So. 351, was decided in 1801 after the adoption of the Constitution of 1890, and announces the rule that damages are not recoverable on account of diverting water upon riparian owners by levee obstruction. This case holds that such damages are occasioned by unavoidable consequences of the situation and the authorized effort to promote the general good, and are to be borne by the damaged partv.
The Smith Case, 72 Miss. 677, 17 So, 78, 27 L. R. A. 762, 48 Am. St. Rep. 579, establishes the righF to protect against flood waters as distinguished from the waters of a stream, thus recognizing the rule giving the right to levee against such waters after they have left the channel of the stream and become a common enemy. This decision was rendered in 1895. See Ham v. Levee Commissioners, 80 Miss. 534, 35 So. 943; Holman v. Richardson, 115 Miss. 169, 76 So. 136, L. R. A. 1917F, 942; Richardson Case, 77 Miss. 518, 26 So. 963
The supreme court of the United States has several times followed this principle as annoucned by our supreme court. We will not quote or discuss these federal decisions, but shall cite them and respectfully recommend their careful perusal. We think these decisions announce sound and logical conclusions, and would be worthy of following even though our court had not already announced the same principle. See the Jackson Case, 230 U. S. 1, 33 Sup. Ct. 1011, 57 L. Ed. 1363; Hughes Case, 230 U. S. 24, 33 Sup. Ct. 1019, 57 L. Ed. 1374, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 624, and Cubbins Case, 241 U. S. 351, 36 Sup. Ct. 671, 60 L. Ed. 1041.
The decisions of our court, cited by appellees to sustain their view with reference to' obstructing natural water courses, are cases where the waters obstructed and diverted were not vagrant flood waters, but were the natural running waters of the water courses that were obstructed. In some .of thetee cases it appears that it was the obstruction of their own flowing or running-stream waters, and in others it was surface or pain waters collected and wrongfully diverted upon another. None of these decisions cited deal with vagrant flood waters that infrequently come and pass from another overflowed stream through the outlet which serves as a conduit to spread the waters upon the adjacent lands of the basin.
The Cannon and Carrier Cases, supra, come nearest to being- in point for appellees, but we have discussed these cases in the light that they were not dealing -with the question of defending against vagrant flood waters.
The decisions of other state courts on these questions are very much in conflict, and we deem it unnecessary to discuss them, because our own court., backed up by the United States supreme court, has already settled the questions in our state. However, a recent- decision by the supreme court of Arkansas in the McCoy Case, 95 Ark. 345. 129 S. W. 1097, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 396, is so identical with the case before us that we refer to it as a sound authority upon which to rest.
There is another case, from California, styled Lamb v. Reclamation District, 73 Cal. 125, 14 Pac. 625, 2 Am. St. Rep. 775, which is so clear and logical in its reasoning* we desire to specially cite it for careful perusal. We cannot refrain from quoting a short excerpt from the opinion as follows:
"Wilkins slough is not a channel or fork, continuously carrying a large part, or any part, of the waters of the Sacramento' river. It carries no water at all except 'in times of flood,' and then the amount which it carries, when compared with the volume of water in the river, is insignificant. In fact, it has no original water of its own at all, but is simply a conduit by vfhich occasionally1 some of the flood waters of the river escape into the lower lands adjoining. This same office is performed by every other low place along* the bank; and every other part of the levee could be removed as a nuisance if that part of it which is at Wilkins slough can be so removed."
We think the lower court erred in overruling the motion to dissolve the injunction, and for such error the decree is reversed, and decree will be entered here for the appellants.
Reversed, and decree entered here for the appellants.
Ethridge and Cook, JJ., dissent.