Court Opinion

ID: 9808408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:37:18.700912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:07.639574
License: Public Domain

AlleN, J.,
concurring in result: The water right or property of the defendant, as riparian owner, is subject to condemnation, unless it is “being used or held to be used or to be developed for use in connection with or addition to any power actually used by” the defendant, within the meaning of the proviso to chapter 302, Laws of 1907, as amended by chapter 94, Laws of 1913 (being section 2575 of Gregory’s Supplement), and I doubt if there is any evidence of this fact, but as the other members of the Court are of a contrary opinion, and no legal principle is involved in this question, I concur in the judgment ordering a new trial.
I do not think the defendant has any property in the water in the stream, and that it is only entitled to a reasonable use of it as it parses his land, which may include the use for manufacturing purposes.
The defendant has no right, in my opinion, to build a dam to the middle of the stream and divert half the water through a flume, although he may return it into the stream one-half mile below, before it leaves his land, and if this is the only way the water can be utilized, it is not a water right or property which cannot be condemned under the statute.
The common law determines, with us, the rights of riparian owners in a stream of water flowing through their lands, and the controlling principles are, I think, correctly stated in Angelí on Water Courses, sec. 100, as follows:
“Whenever a water course divides two estates, the riparian owner of neither can lawfully carry off any part of the water without the consent of the other opposite; and each riparian owner is entitled, not to half, or other proportion of the water, but to the whole bulk of the stream, undivided and indivisible, or per my et per tout. To use the language of Platt, J., in Vandenburg v. Vanbergen, in New York, . . . ‘The grant of an undivided share in a stream would not authorize the grantee to appropriate or modify the stream to the injury of others who have a joint interest in it. The property in a stream of water is indivisible. The joint proprietors must use it as an entire stream in its natural channel; a severance would destroy the rights of all. In *481Blanchard v. Baker, in Maine, tbe defendants, wbo bad tbeir dam on tbe side of tbe stream opposite to tbe plaintiff’s dam, contended tbat they bad a good and legal right to one-balf of tbe water in tbe main stream, and to carry it off by deepening an ancient outlet or canal. . . . . It was beld tbat tbe defendants bad not a right to one-balf of tbe water in tbe main stream of tbe river, so as to abstract it by means of tbe channel in question. Tbe Court said, in reply to tbe suggestion, tbat tbe owners of tbe dam on tbe eastern side of tbe river bad a right to half tbe water, and to divert to that extent: Tt has been seen, tbat if they bad been the owners on both sides, they bad no right to divert tbe water, without again returning it to its original channel. Besides, it was impossible, in tbe nature of things, tbat they could take it from tbeir side only; an equal portion from tbe plaintiff’s side must have been mingled with all tbat was diverted.”
Tbe following authorities support tbe text: Pugh v. Wheeler, 19 N. C., 50; Durham v. Cotton Mills, 141 N. C., 624; Harris v. Railway Co., 153 N. C., 544; Webb v. Portland Mfg. Co., 3 Sumner, 200; Plumleigh v. Dawson, 6 Ill., 550; Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn., 300; Carpenter v. Gold, 88 Va., 553; Vandenburg v. Vandenburg, 13 Johns, 217; Blanchard v. Baker, 8 Me., 266; Davis v. Getchell, 79 A. D., 636; Newhall v. Ireson, 54 A. D., 790; Farnbam on Waters, vol. 2, sec. 464, et seq.; Gold on Waters, sec. 204, et seq.
Tbe language in tbe statute, “beld to be used or to be developed,” means more than a mere mental operation, and at least conveys tbe idea of capacity for use or development.
I do not attach any importance to tbe proposition of tbe defendant to pay tbe plaintiff $40,000 for its water right on tbe opposite side of tbe stream, conceding it to have been made in good faith, because it has no bearing on tbe. legal questions involved and on tbe record is much like offering to buy tbe middle link in a chain without purchasing tbe chain.
WaukbR, J., concurs in tbe opinion of Ali/EN, J.