OCR Text |
Show 180 CONNECTICUT or materially diminish or alter the quantity or quality of the water flowing to lower riparian users.54 What is reasonable is a question of fact for the court or jury to decide in any given case.55 The facts to be considered in determining reasonableness include the size and velocity of the stream, the permanence and evenness of the flow, the number and needs of riparian owners, the customs of the community, and the economic context of the controversy.56 d. SOME SPECIFIC REASONABLE USE CONTROVERSIES An important use of the waters of Connecticut has been the gener- ation of power to run mills and factories. In order to accomplish this, it is often necessary to impound water in watercourses and re- lease it as needed. As a result, one of the most frequently litigated questions is the right to detain and release water for mill purposes. Riparian owners are allowed to build a dam across a watercourse, if they own the bed of the stream, and detain water to be released as necessary for power purposes.57 However, this use of water must be reasonable in light of the conditions of the stream and the needs and uses of other riparian owners. The courts have held it unreason- able to detain waters during the day and release them at night when other riparian users could not benefit from the flow;58 to detain water and release it suddenly so as to flood lower riparian users;59 or to back up waters so as to inundate upper riparian owners' lands or mill sites.60 However, the courts have held that it is not unreason- able to detain the waters of a stream during the night and release it during the normal work day.61 The Connecticut courts have held that a riparian owner may make reasonable diversions for household use, for watering livestock, and for irrigating riparian lands, so long as the diversion is reasonable and does not cause undue injury to lower riparian users.62 However, as noted above, a diversion by a riparian proprietor for use on non- riparian land is a nonriparian use and a lower riparian user may seek an injunction or damages if he is injured by such diversion.63 A municipality has no special rights or preferences to water in Connecticut. Even if a municipality is riparian to a watercourse, the diversion of water for municipal supply purposes is not considered a part of the riparian right.64 A diversion bv a municipality is seldom enjoined; rather, the municipality is required to pay damages to damaged riparians or condemn their riparian rights.63 The power to condemn is derived from the constitutional power of eminent domain and must be exercised for a public purpose.66 ^Wadsworth v. Tillotson, 15 Conn. 366 (1843). a5Parker v. Hotchkiss, 25 Conn. 321 (1856). 50 Reis, Connecticut Water Law: Judicial Allocation of Water Resources, 34 (1967). « Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 288 (1845). 58 Twisa v. Baldwin, 9 Conn. 291 (1832) ; Rock Manuafcturing Company v. Hough, 39 Conn. 190 (1872). 69 Beauton v. Connecticut Light & Power Company, 125 Conn. 76, 3 A. 2d 315 (1938). eaKing v. Tiffany, 9 Conn. 162 (1832). «! Keeney & Wood Manufacturing Company v. Union Manufacturing Company, 39 Conn. 576 (1873). 62Perkins v. Dow, 1 Root 535 (1793) ; Oillett v. Johnson, 30 Conn. 180 (1861). «3Parker v. QHswold, 17 Conn. 288 (1845) ; Sisters of St. Joseph Corp. v. Atlas Sand, G. & S. Co., 120 Conn. 168, 180 Atl. 303 (1895). M Osoorn v. Norwalle, 77 Conn. 663, 60 Atl. 645 (1905). 83 Watson v. New Milford Water Co., 71 Conn. 442, 42 Atl. 265 (1899). eaSee, e.g., Adams v. Greenwich Water Co., 138 Conn. 205, 83 A. 2d 177 (1951), where the court refused condemnation of a water supply to benefit citizens of the State of New York. |