| OCR Text |
Show 80 ALABAMA gable waters, or to the middle (or thread) of the watercourse if an- other person owns the opposite bank; and, as to navigable waters, the riparian owner's title extends to the mean high watermark on tidal waters and to the line of low water on inland navigable waters.30 Whether the waters are navigable or not, the riparian owner has the right to wharf-out into the water, but on navigable waters this right is subject to State and Federal regulatory controls.31 A riparian owner also has a right of access from his riparian land to water of a navigable depth (across the State-owned shoreland and bed located below the high watermark or line of low water, as the case may be).32 The riparian right also includes new land formed by accretion or exposed by reliction, and the possibility of acquiring such land in the future is a presently vested right.33 Where the water is nonnavigable, the riparian owner is entitled to exclu- sive fishing rights and privileges in the waters flowing across or standing upon his land, subject only to the regulatory power of the State to preserve and protect the fishery resource for the general public good.34 As miscellaneous observations, it has been said that a riparian owner may divert water from a stream but that he must return it to the channel; and when such a diversion was made and the user con- structed a ditch to carry the water back to the channel, but where another person without any right, authority, or permission with- drew the water from the ditch before it reached the natural channel, the original diverter would be liable for damages caused-because he acted at his peril when he diverted the water, and any question of negligence was irrelevant.35 On the other hand, when one uses a stream to float logs, and they lodge against improvements and cause damage to another, the question of liability depends upon neg- ligence, and damages will be awarded where the logs were floated in a negligent or careless manner.36 The view of the Alabama courts toward water pollution problems has been discussed above in the general preview of the case law of the State. At this juncture it perhaps is appropriate simply to add that (1) pollution caused by a nonriparian is more apt to be action- able than pollution caused by a riparian, because a nonriparian has no riparian rights and thus no right to make even a reasonable use of the water, and he thus will be liable for damages caused;37 and (2) where pollution is caused, liability does not depend on whether the defendant manufacturer used due care and operated with up-to-date facilities, but whether the water was so polluted as to unreasonably, injuriously, unjustly, or materially affect its use by lower proprietors.38 a" MoMle Transp. Co. v. City of Mobile, 153 Ala. 409, 44 So. 976 (1907). si Id. 32 United States v. Turner, 175 F. 2d 644 (1949). 33 Pippen v. Carpenter, 208 Ala. 1, 93 So. 878 (1922). s* Hood v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 408,165 So. 219 (1936). » Stein v. Burden, 29 Ala. 127 (1856). ™Gulf Bed Cedar Co. v. Walker, 132 Ala. 553, 31 So. 374 (1902). v American Tar Products Co. v. Jones, 17 Ala. App. 481, 86 So. 113 (1920). 88Id. |
